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 of Group I (i.e. claim(s) 1-10) without traverse in the reply filed on 08/13/2026 is acknowledged. Claim(s) 11-20 is/are withdrawn as being drawn to nonelected group II. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-10 is/are examined herein.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, “having surface” should be changed to --having a surface--.
Claim 3, “the groove comprises;” should be changed to --the groove comprises:--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1-10 is/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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “in a length of heat fixable tubing” and “a tubing” multiples which make the scope of the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the recited tubing are same or different tubing. According to Applicant’s disclosure, they are the same tubing. Claim has been examined below as if the instances of “a tubing” read --the tubing--.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “in a length of heat fixable tubing” and “a tubing” multiples which make the scope of the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the recited tubing are same or different tubing. According to Applicant’s disclosure, they are the same tubing. Claim 1 has been examined below as if the instances of “a tubing” read --the tubing--.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the groove having a dimension that is smaller than an outer dimension of a tubing to be bent therein” which is indefinite. The limitation is indefinite because it attempts to define the size of a claimed entity (i.e., the groove) in terms of a second entity (i.e., the tubing) not forming part of the claimed invention as the tubing is not positively recited. Thus, the scope of the claim is unclear. It is also unclear how the groove that has a dimension that is smaller than an outer dimension of a tubing to be bent therein accommodates/receives and presses/shapes the tubing. The limitation has been examined below as best understood.
Claim(s) 2-10 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 1 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Claims 5 and 7-9 recite the limitation “a tubing” which is indefinite. It is unclear if the tubing in these claims is same or different from the tubing of claim 1. According to Applicant’s disclosure, they are the same tubing. Thus, the claims have been examined below as if the instances of “a tubing” read --the tubing--.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the fixing portion” which is indefinite. There is not sufficient antecedent basis for “the fixing portion” in the claim(s). The limitation has been examined below as if it read –the fixing element--.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a generally first flat plane surface” which is indefinite. The term “generally” renders the limitation indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation has been examined below as if the term was not present.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the curved surface” which is indefinite. It is unclear which of the two curved surfaces previously introduced is Applicant referring to in this limitation. The limitation has been examined below as if it read --the second curved surface--.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “substantially over its circumference” which is indefinite. The term “substantially” renders the limitation indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation has been examined below as if the term “substantially” was not present.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jacob (US 4218420 – of record).
Regarding claim 1, Jacob discloses a system (20: Figs. 1-11 and corresponding description) for imposing a permanent bend in a length of heat fixable tubing (20 is capable of imposing a permanent bend/bends in a length of a polymeric hose 21: Figs. 2 & 8 and corresponding description), comprising:
a bend setting portion (22) having a surface (upper surface of 22: Figs. 2-3 and corresponding description);
a groove (23) extending inwardly of the surface (Figs. 2-4 and corresponding description), the groove having an inner dimension that is smaller than an outer dimension of the tubing to be bent therein (the diameter of 23 being smaller than the length of 21 to be bent therein: Figs. 2 & 8 and corresponding description);
a fixing element (25) extendable over/parallel to the bend setting portion (22) to secure the tubing in the groove (Figs. 1-5 and corresponding description); and
a heater (40/44A) configured to heat the bend setting portion to a tubing fixing temperature (Figs. 6-7 and corresponding description).
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (US 20200368801).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a system (device) for imposing a permanent bend in a length of heat fixable tubing (device for imposing a permanent bend in a length of a thermoplastic resin tube 20: P0001, Figs. 1-9 and corresponding description), comprising:
a bend setting portion (1) having a surface (upper surface 17 of 1: P0045, Figs. 1-5);
a groove (2a) extending inwardly of the surface (P0038, Fig. 2-5), the groove having an inner dimension that is smaller than an outer dimension of the tubing to be bent therein (the dimension b of 2a being smaller than the length and/or the diameter of the tube to be bent therein: P0040, 0060, Figs. 1-3 and corresponding description);
a fixing element (30) extendable/insertable to secure the tubing in the groove (P0059, Figs. 3, 8, and 9D); and
a heater (13) configured to heat the bend setting portion to a tubing fixing temperature (P0040, 0043, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Liu further implicitly discloses/shows wherein the fixing element further comprises a clamp extending inwardly of the groove (30 is disclosed/shown as performing clamping of the tube and extending inwardly into the opening 7 of the grove 2a; thus, 30 reads on the claimed clamp: P0059, Figs. 3, 8, and 9D).
Regarding claim 3, Liu further discloses/shows wherein the groove (2a) comprises:
an opening (7) in the surface (upper surface) of the bend setting portion (P0038-0040, Figs. 2-3);
opposed side walls extending inwardly of the surface of the bend setting portion (Figs. 2-3); and
a first curved surface located inwardly of the groove and facing the opening and connecting to opposed inward ends of the opposed sidewalls (Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 4, Liu further discloses/shows wherein the fixing element (30) includes a second curved surface, which, when located in the groove, faces the first curved surface (P0059, Fig. 9D).
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.
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 5, Liu fails to disclose wherein the fixing element includes a first flat plane surface on the side thereof opposed to the second curved surface; the surface of the bend setting portion comprises a second flat plane surface; and the first flat plane surface of the fixing element is configured to rest coplanar to the second flat plane surface when the fixing element is located in the grove and in contact with the tubing therein.
The difference between Liu and the claimed invention amounts to a change in shape of the interface between the fixing element and the bend setting portion from a circular interface to a coplanar interface. Examiner did not find criticality in Applicant’s disclosure for selecting the claimed coplanar interface. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the claimed coplanar interface would yield the predictable result(s) of providing better engagement and/or force distribution.
Since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Liu by changing the shape of the interface between the fixing element and the bend setting portion from a circular interface to a coplanar interface such that the fixing element includes a first flat plane surface on the side thereof opposed to the second curved surface; the surface of the bend setting portion comprises a second flat plane surface; and the first flat plane surface of the fixing element is configured to rest coplanar to the second flat plane surface when the fixing element is located in the grove and in contact with the tubing therein yielding the predictable benefit(s) of providing better engagement and/or force distribution. See MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding claim 6, Liu further discloses/shows wherein the first curved surface and the second curved surface are partial circles, and each has the same radius (P0037, 0040, 0059, Fig. 9D).
Regarding claim 7, Liu further discloses/shows wherein the first curved surface and second curved surface are configured to contact the tubing in the groove over its circumference (P0059, Fig. 9D).
Regarding claim 8, Liu further discloses/shows wherein the distance between the second curved surface and the second plane surface of the fixing portion is configured such that the second curved surface and the first curved surface together radially inwardly compress the tubing (P0059, Fig. 9D).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacob or Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further un view of Barnett (US 3753635).
Regarding claim 9, Jacob or Liu fail to disclose a plug receivable in an open end of the tubing.
In the same field of endeavor, systems for bending heat fixable tubing, Barnett discloses the technique of including a plug (31/32) receivable in an open end of the tubing (20) for the benefit(s) of pressurizing/vacuuming the interior conduit of the tubing and bending the tubing with minimum distortion (Abstract, Fig. 1, C3, L15-46, and other corresponding description).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Jacob or Liu in view of Barnett by incorporating at least one plug receivable in an open end of the tubing for the benefit(s) of pressurizing/vacuuming the interior conduit of the tubing and/or bending the tubing with minimum distortion as suggested by Barnett. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Regarding claim 10, Jacob or Liu fail to disclose a plug receivable in an open end of the tubing.
In the same field of endeavor, systems for bending heat fixable tubing, Barnett discloses the technique of including a plug (31/32) receivable in an open end of the tubing (20) for the benefit(s) of pressurizing/vacuuming the interior conduit of the tubing and bending the tubing with minimum distortion (Abstract, Fig. 1, C3, L15-46, and other corresponding description).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Jacob or Liu in view of Barnett by incorporating at least one plug receivable in an open end of the tubing for the benefit(s) of pressurizing/vacuuming the interior conduit of the tubing and/or bending the tubing with minimum distortion as suggested by Barnett. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Regarding claim 10, Jacob or Liu fail to disclose an active cooling volume.
In the same field of endeavor, systems for bending heat fixable tubing, Barnett discloses the technique of including an active cooling volume (56/57: Fig. 5) for the benefit(s) of actively cooling the bent tubing, improving production, and/or bending the tubing with minimum distortion (Abstract, C1, L6-9; C4, L12-47, Fig. 5, and other corresponding description).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Jacob or Liu in view of Barnett by incorporating an active cooling volume for the benefit(s) of actively cooling the bent tubing, improving production, and/or bending the tubing with minimum distortion as suggested by Barnett. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Conclusion
Additional prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered to be pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure:
Hilmor (GB 902745 A) discloses a relevant system (Figs. 1-2 and corresponding description).
Duan (CN 109109300 A – of record) teaches the of including a plug (4) receivable in an open end of the tubing (Fig. 1 and corresponding description).
Riggs (US 20030068397 – of record) discloses the technique of including an active cooling volume (P0031, Fig. 2).
Stripe (US 6287508 – of record) discloses the technique of including an active cooling volume (P0031, Fig. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0625. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00-10:00 PM PT.
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.
JERZI H. MORENO HERNANDEZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights