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 . 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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
-Regarding claim 1, the phrase “wherein the second material comprises at least one biopolymer and/or at least one recycled polymer having a lower impact resistance than the first material” is new matter and lacks written description. Examiner notes page 3, Lines 20-21 merely state “Polyamides are usually used to form cutting monofilaments due to their high heat resistance and impact resistance”. Page 4, Lines 23-24 provide “In particular, recycled polymers may have a reduced viscosity, and or a reduced impact resistance”. The specification does not detail the specifics of impact resistance, nor does the specification appear to provide any comparisons between specific materials allowing for one material to have a greater/lower impact resistance. As such, the language does not appear to disclose the materials claimed to provide a range noting the required overlap or range of the impact resistances of either material. While a multitude of materials are provided, there are no descriptions to show which materials may have a higher impact resistance, such that the second material (Only noted as the recycled polymers and not the biopolymers as current claimed) may have a lower impact resistance. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated by the initially claimed materials (polyamide and biopolymer/recycled polymer) as reading upon the second material having a lower impact resistance than the first material.
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.
Claims 1-6, 12, 14-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skinner (U.S. Patent Pub. No. (2002/0023356) in view of Satoshi (U.S. Patent No. 3,725,192).
Regarding claim 1, Skinner teaches a monofilament for cutting vegetation, comprising:
a matrix made of a first material comprising at least one polyamide (Paragraph 0062; Examiner notes Nylon to be a polyamide) and
at least two channels separately embedded in the matrix so that the first material entirely surrounds each channel (Figure 1), the at least two channels being made of a second material different from the first material, wherein the second material comprises at least one biopolymer and/or at least one recycled polymer, wherein a central portion of the monofilament is formed by a material (Abstract; Paragraph 0054-0056; Examiner notes the biopolymer and or at least one recycled polymer to have a lower impact resistance than the first material as best understood in light of the 112 rejections above);
wherein the at least two channels present a triangular cross section, an altitude of each triangle being oriented radially between a base and a vertex of the triangle and said base being located more inside the monofilament than said vertex (Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0062-0064).
Skinner does not provide wherein a central portion of the monofilament is formed by the first material and an outer portion of the monofilament is continuously formed by the first material.
Satoshi teaches it is known in the art of filaments to incorporate a matrix with a first material and at least two channels embedded within the matrix so that the first material entirely surrounds each channel; the at least two channels being made of a second material different from the first material wherein the at least two channels present a triangular cross section, an altitude of each triangle being oriented radially between a base and a vertex of the triangle and said base being located more inside the monofilament than said vertex and wherein a central portion of the monofilament is formed by the first material and an outer portion of the monofilament is continuously formed by the first material (Figure 6; Col. 5, Lines 67-75 and Col. 6, Lines 1-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Skinner to incorporate the teachings of Satoshi to provide the central portion/outer portion of the monofilament with the first material. Doing so allows for a decrease in torsional strain.
Regarding claim 2, the modified device of Skinner teaches the monofilament of claim 1, wherein the at least two channels are each made of a different second material and/or each have a different cross section (Skinner Figure 3; Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of Skinner teaches the monofilament of claim 1, wherein the matrix extends over the whole circumference of the monofilament (Skinner Figure 3).
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Skinner teaches the monofilament of claim 1, wherein the matrix and the at least two channels extend continuously along a longitudinal axis of the monofilament (Skinner Figure 3).
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Skinner teaches the monofilament of claim 4, wherein the at least two channels are linear and parallel to the longitudinal axis (Skinner Figure 3).
Regarding claim 6, the modified device of Skinner teaches the monofilament of claim 1, wherein the at least two channels are arranged according to a regular pattern over the cross section of the monofilament; wherein the at least two channels have identical cross-sectional shapes and sizes and have a same distance relative to a circumference of the monofilament (Skinner Figure 3).
Regarding claim 12, the modified device of Skinner teaches the monofilament of claim 1, and wherein the second material comprises a filler made of at least one of: natural fibers, such as flax, hemp, cellulose, or miscanthus, talc, silica, alumina (A12O3), and titanium oxide (TiO2) (Skinner Paragraph 0040-0043).
Regarding claim 14, the modified device of Skinner teaches the monofilament of claim 1, wherein the monofilament is capable of being obtained by a single extrusion step (Skinner Abstract; Examiner notes the claims to be directed to a monofilament, and as such, the monofilament of Skinner is capable of being made by a method step).
Regarding claim 15, the modified device of Skinner teaches the monofilament of claim 14, wherein the first and second materials are coextruded (Skinner Abstract; Examiner notes the claims to be directed to a monofilament, and as such, the monofilament of Skinner is capable of being made by a method step).
Regarding claim 16 the modified device of Skinner provides the monofilament of claim 15, and at least one compatibilization agent configured to promote bonding of the first and second materials (Skinner Paragraph 0054).
Regarding claim 18, the modified device of Skinner teaches the monofilament of claim 1, further comprising at least one hollow channel embedded in the matrix (Skinner Paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 20, the modified device of Skinner teaches comprising four channels arranged at an equal distance from each other (Skinner Figure 3 and Satoshi Figure 6).
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.
Claims 8, 11, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skinner (U.S. Patent Pub. No. (2002/0023356) in view of Satoshi (U.S. Patent No. 3,725,192) as applied to claim 1 above, as evidenced by Scheer (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/0229669) in view of Legrand (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/0152404) Hereinafter Legrand 404 in view of Legrand (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0271993) Hereinafter Legrand 993.
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Skinner teaches the monofilament of claim 1, but does not provide wherein the volume of the channels is comprised between 10% and 80% of the volume of the monofilament.
Scheer provides evidence it is known to have biodegradable polymers with variable materials utilized in total weight percentage, including biodegradable materials such as starch (Abstract, Paragraphs 0033-0041; Examiner notes the items specifically relate to molded and extruded articles).
Legrand 404 teaches it is known in the art of cutting filaments to vary material properties of the cutting filament by weight utilizing polyamides and various materials to increase biodegradability (Paragraph 0081-00101).
Legrand 993 teaches it is known in the art of cutting filaments to incorporate polyamides as a material with variable total weight proportions to provide specific variable benefits depending on the desired cutting filament (Paragraphs 0047-0054; Examiner notes there are a variety of weight proportions from .2%-70% providing for desired effects in material proportions ranging from increased cutting efficiency, mechanical properties, biodegradability etc).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make have volume of the channels between 10-80 percent of the monofilament because discovering a workable channel volume with the specific percentages would have been a mere design consideration based on the desired cutting filament be made. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement(s) as Skinner, Legrand 404 and Legrand 993 have set forth it is known to have a channel volume. Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, Skinner teaches the monofilament of claim 1, but does not provide wherein the first and second materials comprise a mixture of polyamide and starch, an amount of starch in the second material being comprised between 40-60 percent by weight and an amount of starch in the first material being comprised between 20 and 40 percent by weight.
Scheer provides evidence it is known to have biodegradable polymers with variable materials utilized in total weight percentage, including biodegradable materials such as starch (Abstract, Paragraphs 0033-0041; Examiner notes the items specifically relate to molded and extruded articles).
Legrand 404 teaches it is known in the art of cutting filaments to vary material properties of the cutting filament by weight utilizing polyamides and various materials to increase biodegradability (Paragraph 0081-00101).
Legrand 993 teaches it is known in the art of cutting filaments to incorporate polyamides as a material with variable total weight proportions to provide specific variable benefits depending on the desired cutting filament (Paragraphs 0047-0054; Examiner notes there are a variety of weight proportions from .2%-70% providing for desired effects in material proportions ranging from increased cutting efficiency, mechanical properties, biodegradability etc).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make have the wherein the first and second materials comprise a mixture of polyamide and starch, an amount of starch in the second material being comprised between 40-60 percent by weight and an amount of starch in the first material being comprised between 20 and 40 percent by weight because discovering a workable cutting edge with the specific material weight proportions would have been a mere design consideration based on the desired cutting filament to be made. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement(s) as Skinner, Scheer, Legrand 404 and Legrand 993 have set forth it is known to have variable cutting filaments made of various materials utilizing a variety of weight proportions. Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
In the instant case, the device of Skinner would not operate differently with the claimed material weight proportions and since the cutting line is intended to have mixed material properties for various cutting efficiencies such that the device would function appropriately having the claimed material properties. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the claimed proportions are provided (specification page 2 Lines 18-20 and Page 6)
As such, the modified device of Skinner provides wherein the first and second materials comprise a mixture of polyamide and starch, an amount of starch in the second material being comprised between 40-60 percent by weight and an amount of starch in the first material being comprised between 20 and 40 percent by weight (See referenced sections of Skinner, Scheer, Legrand 404 and Legrand 993 above).
Regarding claim 13, the modified device of Skinner teaches the monofilament of claim 1, but does not provide wherein the weight of the channels is comprised between 20 and 80% of the weight of the monofilament.
Scheer provides evidence it is known to have biodegradable polymers with variable materials utilized in total weight percentage, including biodegradable materials such as starch (Abstract, Paragraphs 0033-0041; Examiner notes the items specifically relate to molded and extruded articles).
Legrand 404 teaches it is known in the art of cutting filaments to vary material properties of the cutting filament by weight utilizing polyamides and various materials to increase biodegradability (Paragraph 0081-00101).
Legrand 993 teaches it is known in the art of cutting filaments to incorporate polyamides as a material with variable total weight proportions to provide specific variable benefits depending on the desired cutting filament (Paragraphs 0047-0054; Examiner notes there are a variety of weight proportions from .2%-70% providing for desired effects in material proportions ranging from increased cutting efficiency, mechanical properties, biodegradability etc).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make have weight of the channels between 20-80 percent of the weight of the monofilament because discovering a workable weight with the specific percentages would have been a mere design consideration based on the desired cutting filament be made. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement(s) as Skinner, Legrand 404 and Legrand 993 have set forth it is known to have varied weight proportions. Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 17, the modified device of Skinner teaches the monofilament of claim 1, but does not provide, presenting a diameter comprised between 1.6 mm and 4.5 mm.
Scheer provides evidence it is known to have biodegradable polymers with variable materials (Abstract, Paragraphs 0033-0041).
Legrand 404 teaches it is known in the art of cutting filaments to vary material properties of the cutting filament by weight utilizing polyamides and various materials to increase biodegradability (Figures 1-3; Paragraph 0081-00101).
Legrand 993 teaches it is known in the art of cutting filaments to incorporate polyamides as a material with variable total weight proportions to provide specific variable benefits depending on the desired cutting filament (Figures 1A and 2A; Paragraphs 0047-0054).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make have a diameter of the monofilament between 1.6-4.5mm because discovering a workable diameter with the specific percentages would have been a mere design consideration based on the desired cutting filament be made. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement(s) as Skinner, Satoshi, Legrand 404 and Legrand 993 have set forth it is known to have varied diameters/shapes as shown in the Figures. Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 9, 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skinner (U.S. Patent Pub. No. (2002/0023356) in view of Satoshi (U.S. Patent No. 3,725,192) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Legrand-993 (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0271993).
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Skinner does not provide wherein the first material comprises at least one of: polyamide 6, polyamide 6-6, copolyamide 6/66, polyamide 4-6, polyamide 6-10, polyamide 11, polyamide 12, polyamide 6T.
Legrand-993 teaches it is known in the art of cutting monofilaments to incorporate wherein the material comprises at least one of: polyamide 6, polyamide 6-6, copolyamide 6/66, polyamide 4-6, polyamide 6-10, polyamide 11, polyamide 12, polyamide 6T (Legrand 993 Paragraphs 0045, 0048-0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Skinner to incorporate the teachings of Legrand to provide the specifics of the second material. Doing so improves the hardness and durability.
Regarding claim 10, the modified device of Skinner provides, the monofilament of claim 1 above, but does not provide wherein the second material comprises at least one of: polysaccharide, such as thermoplastic starch (TPS) or cellulose, polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA), polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB), polylactic acid (PLA), polybutylene succinate (PBS), polybutylene adipate terephthalate (PBAT), polycaprolactone (PCL), and thermoplastic elastomer (TPE).
Legrand-993 teaches it is known in the art of cutting monofilaments to incorporate wherein the material may be PLA (Paragraph 0045 and 0053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Skinner to incorporate the teachings of Legrand to provide the specifics of the second material. Doing so improves the cutting efficiency and biodegradability.
Regarding claim 19, the modified device of Skinner provides the monofilament of claim 1 above, but does not provide a process for manufacturing the monofilament of claim 1, wherein the matrix and the at least two channels are formed by a single extrusion step.
Legrand-993 teaches it is known in the art of cutting monofilaments to incorporate wherein the matrix and the at least two channels are formed by a single extrusion step (Paragraphs 0064-0070).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Skinner to incorporate the teachings of Legrand to provide a matrix in a single extrusion step. Doing so reduced overall manufacturing processes to create a simpler process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
-In response to applicant's arguments (Page 7 noting the embodiment of Skinner, without the combination of structural elements of Satoshi) against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
-Applicant’s further arguments concerning the technical fields and unrelated purposes are noted but not persuasive. Examiner notes both Skinner and Satoshi provide for specific differences related to the field on filaments using similar materials. The intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the secondary piece of art relates to the same field of filaments, made through a variety of processes, having similar structural component and shapes/configurations with varied materials used to provide for said shapes/configurations.
Applicant’s arguments noting classification of the prior art is noted, and addressed above noting both pieces art of relate to filaments of varied shape/structure utilizing overlapping materials.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD D CROSBY JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, Adam Eiseman can be reached on 571-270-3818. 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.
/RICHARD D CROSBY JR/ 04/03/2026Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724