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 (claims 1 -13) in the reply filed on 03/09/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirschberger (US 5,204,120).
Regarding claims 1-2, Hirschberger teaches an extrusion device for manufacturing a hollow structure by coaxial extrusion of a plurality of media (see col 1. Lines 10 to col 10. Lines 40; Fig. 1 – 9 pertains to multilayer multi-parison extrusion which is hollow structure from plurality of gates at 36,38, and 40),the extrusion device comprising: nozzles (Fig. 2. Item 16,18,22); a bearing (Fig. 2 item 64); and
a bracket (Fig. 2, i.e. at 66,70 gaps are adjusted via ring and bolts), each of said brackets provided for one of said nozzles for extruding one of the media (as shown in Fig 2), said brackets extending in an axial direction along a central axis and disposed coaxially (see col 5 lines 1-65 and throughout), for coaxial arrangement of said nozzles one inside another, such that said at least two brackets are movable relative to one another in the axial direction to adjust relative axial positions of respective ones of said nozzles (Fig 2); wherein: said plurality of brackets are at least three said brackets (Fig 2 brackets are structures where bolts are mounted to); and said brackets are movable relative to one another in the axial direction for adjusting the relative axial positions of said nozzles relative to one another (Fig. 2 shows some brackets movable in axial direction both right and left).
Hirschberger discloses adjusting gaps of the flow passages enlarge or reduce in size (see col 5 lines 1 col 6 lines 65), via rings and threads (see “axial motion of the sleeve causes the gap 66 at the base of the inner flow passage 20 to be either enlarged or reduced in size” see col 5 lines 1-20), there exist at least plurality of brackets (at least two or three), for each nozzles providing different flow passages, to adjust the gaps of these passages (see Fig. 2).
As for claim 3, Hirschberger further discloses three gates, thus is capable of having wherein: a first of the media is a support medium for filling a lumen of the hollow structure; a second of the media is a wall material for forming a wall of the hollow structure; and a third of the media is a curing agent for curing a second medium when merged with the second medium (see col 3 lines 25-65 discloses having gates thus each gate is capable of supplying the materials as claimed).
As for claim 4 - 5, Hirschberger further teaches wherein: one of said brackets is an inner bracket; another of said brackets is an outer bracket (Fig 2 different brackets are used controlling gaps at 66, 70 both inner and outer); and said inner bracket is movable in the axial direction relative to said outer bracket to such an extent that said nozzle of said inner bracket protrudes relative to said nozzle of said outer bracket in order to pierce an existing hollow structure for forming a branch by integral formation of the hollow structure on the existing hollow structure (as shown in Fig 2); wherein: said bearing serves for stabilizing and guiding said brackets and for coaxially aligning said brackets as they are placed one inside another during an assembly process; and said bearing has at least one bearing region which is configured such that, as said brackets are placed one inside the other, said bearing region always ensures guidance such that, in the radial direction, a clearance of an inner nozzle of said nozzles does not in any region exceed a specified gap dimension in relation to an outer nozzle of said nozzles, so as to prevent damage to said nozzles during a placement one inside the other (see col 5 lines 1 to col 6 lines 65; Fig 2 shows plurality of brackets where bolts are mounted which includes bearing).
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirschberger (US 5,204,120).
As for claims 10 and 13, Hirschberger further discloses including nozzles for forming parison (see abstract; col 1 lines 10-20), fails to explicitly tach said nozzles are configured such that the hollow structure is manufactured with an internal diameter of at most 1 mm; wherein said nozzles are configured such that the hollow structure is manufactured with an internal diameter in a range from 10 µm to 200 µm. However, it is known that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 -9 and 11-12 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 above closest prior art(US 5,204,120) fails to teach wherein: said bearing has two bearing regions, including a front bearing region and a rear bearing region; and said front bearing region and said rear bearing region are disposed one behind another, and spaced from one another, in the axial direction such that, at all times during an extrusion process, both of said bearing regions bear load, in order to at all times ensure sufficient guidance and rigidity of said bearing and thus a coaxial alignment of said nozzles; wherein said bearing has a sealing gap, an annular channel and at least one bearing region which is divided into two parts by said annular channel for one of the media, such that another of the media, which enters said annular channel through said sealing gap of said bearing, is merged with the medium in said annular channel in order to seal off said sealing gap; wherein said brackets are rotatable relative to one another about the central axis in order to compensate concentricity tolerances of said nozzles; wherein each of said brackets has a receptacle for one of said nozzles, and each said receptacle is configured as a transverse press fit; comprising a drive unit by means of which said brackets are movable relative to one another automatedly; further comprising a tool change assembly which, for each of said brackets, has a clamping device for holding and fixing an associated one of said brackets, wherein each said clamping device has a tension arm and a compression arm which peripherally engage around said associated bracket.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2007/0202209 A1; US 4,824,618 – are pertaining to coaxial nozzle (passages) for forming multilayer tubular structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAHIDA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-1925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday (8:30 AM -5:00 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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
NAHIDA SULTANA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights