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 1, as well as dependent claims 2-5 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 claims the invention as a “hose with an indicator”, however also claims a deterioration state determination device provided with a deterioration determination model and a color change database, which is not part of the hose nor indicator. Thus it is unclear if the color extraction and deterioration determination device (and/or the method of using it) is supposed to be part of the claimed device (which is claimed to be just the hose with an indicator) and causes the claim to take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.
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.
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.
Claims 1,2,4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over X-Code’s product “The X-CODE self-adhesive label”, hereafter known as X-Code, in view of Certags’s product “Heavy Duty ClearWraps”, hereafter known as Certags. In further view of Ishida (CN 107710234 B), hereafter known as Ishida.
Regarding claim 1, X-Code discloses a hose with an indicator (page 3, product image, hose with indicator sticker, X-Code), comprising:
a hose body made of rubber that forms a fluid flow path therein (page 3, product image, black hose body forms a fluid flow path therein and appears rubber-like, but is not disclosed to be rubber, X-Code);
a fitting made of metal connected to an end of the hose body (page 3, product image, metal fitting is attached to end of hose body, X-Code);
and an indicator (page 3, product image, indicator sticker with text and QR code on the hose body, X-Code) in which color components are extracted by a deterioration state determination device provided with a deterioration determination model and a color change database in order to determine deterioration state of the hose body (not disclosed),
wherein a first indicator is attached to an external surface of the hose body (page 3, product image, indicator sticker with text and QR code on the hose body, X-Code),
a second indicator is attached to an external surface of the fitting (not disclosed),
and the color component extracted from the first indicator is compared with the color component of the second indicator in determining deterioration state of the hose body (not disclosed).
X-Code does not disclose the hose body to be rubber. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the material of the hose body to be rubber, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
X-Code does not disclose an indicator on the surface of the pipe fitting. However, Certags teaches attaching an indicator to the external surface of the fitting (product video, 0:05, indicator, which can have a bar code, as seen in 0:11, is attached to the external surface of the metal fitting, Certags). Certags is a product page for indicator labels attached to hoses, a field closely related to X-Code and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Certags into X-Code and attached a label onto the hose fitting of X-Code. Attaching an indicator label to the fitting of a hose is well known in the art, and having multiple indicators along the length of the hose allows users to easily access the information in cases where the hose is long. Also include case law of duplication and location. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to attach a second label of X-Code onto the body of the hose, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8, and rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
X-Code in view of Certags does not disclose the indicators in which color components are extracted by a deterioration state determination device provided with a deterioration determination model and a color change database in order to determine deterioration state of the hose body, and the color component extracted from the first indicator is compared with the color component of the second indicator in determining deterioration state of the hose body. However, Ishida teaches indicators (figs 1a, indicator 10, Ishida) in which color components (figs 1a, paragraphs 0030 and 0031, color components 21-23 change color when exposed to environmental conditions, Ishida) are extracted by a deterioration state determination device (para 0054, 0069 image input device 110 and arithmetic unit 140 extract the color of the indicator color components, Ishida) provided with a deterioration determination model (para 0069, the arithmetic unit synthesizes the color data, and so must have a model to determine if environmental changes have happened, Ishida) and a color change database (para 0061, benchmark color data can be used to determine the environmental changes, Ishida). Ishida describes an indicator label with a bar or QR code, a field closely related to X-Code, Certags, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Ishida into X-Code in view of Certags and add the color changing portions of the labels of Ishida to the labels of X-Code in view of Certags, as well as use the data reading system of Ishida to read the labels. The color changing components provide information on various environmental factors (para 0030, the color indicators can change color depending on factors such as temperature, humidity, vibration, gas, and air pressure, Ishida), allowing users to better understand the condition of the hose during transport or operation. After the modification, the color component extracted from the first indicator can be compared with the color component of the second indicator by the user when determining deterioration state of the hose body. Additionally, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), MPEP 2114(I&II). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987.
Regarding claim 2, X-Code in view of Certags and Ishida discloses the hose with an indicator according to claim 1, wherein the indicator has: a color pattern in which a plurality of colors with different sensitivities to deterioration factors are applied to different positions (fig 1a, Ishida, environmental change identifiers 21-23 can be different colors and have different sensitivities to factors such as temperature, humidity, vibration, etc. (para 0030) and are at different positions on the label); and an identifier (fig 1a, Ishida, QR code identifier 12).
Regarding claim 4, X-Code in view of Certags and Ishida discloses the hose with an indicator according to claim 2, wherein the deterioration factors include at least one of heat, oxygen, water, ultraviolet rays, and ozone (para 0030, the environmental factors can include temperature and humidity, as well as the presence of gasses, Ishida)
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over X-Code in view of Certags and Ishida, in further view of SpotSee’s product “Irreversible Thermochromic Inks”, hereafter known as SpotSee.
Regarding claim 3, X-Code in view of Certags and Ishida discloses the hose with an indicator according to claim 2 but does not disclose wherein the color pattern is configured to include a plurality of color components that show different changes in response to one of the deterioration factors.
However, SpotSee teaches a color pattern that shows different changes in response to temperature, which can be a degradation factor (product image, the color pattern changes different colors in response to temperature, SpotSee). SpotSee is a product page for temperature induced color changing labels, a field related to X-Code, Certags, Ishida, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to have incorporated the teachings of SpotSee into X-Code in view of Certags and Ishida and make color pattern show different changes in response to temperature. Having more than one color change in response to temperature would allow the user to see the color change in a wider variety of lighting.
Regarding claim 5, X-Code in view of Certags, Ishida, and SpotSee discloses the hose with an indicator according to claim 3, wherein the deterioration factors include at least one of heat, oxygen, water, ultraviolet rays, and ozone (para 0030, the environmental factors can include temperature and humidity, as well as the presence of gasses, Ishida).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Proveda (US2016243648A1) and Petronilli (US 20230366492 A1) discloses a flexible hose with QR codes on the hose body.
Crisman (US 5622210 A) discloses hose with an environmental indicating strip on the hose body.
Kitayama (JP 2005249474 A) discloses a color changing UV indicator for products
Studer (US 20120043480 A1) and Gooding (US 11174407 B2) discloses UV induced color changing ink of various colors
Hermans (GB 2528492 A), Gordon (US 20210085811 A1), and Foller (US 20200149960 A1) discloses UV induced color changing patch
Roseway (US 10725002 B2) discloses color changing indicator that responds to various environmental factors
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAOTIAN LU whose telephone number is (571)272-0444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm 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 supervisor, 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.
/H.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights