DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claims 18,23-25 and 30-62 are pending.
Claims 18, 23-25, 30-44, 47-62 are under examination on the merits.
Claims 18, 47 are amended.
Claims 19-22, 26-29 are previously canceled.
Claims 57-62 are newly added.
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 18, 23-25, 30-44, 47-62 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. Independent claims 18 newly recites “wherein the at least four overlapping layers along at least one portion of the length of the single strip of material in each of the at least four convolutions are unconnected to one another”. The breadth of this phrase is not supported by the specification. In Remarks 10/30/25 applicant cites the Example in which only 40mm of sling circumference is stitched- i.e. the rest is unconnected- to support the claim phrase for "at least one portion unconnected to one another". This is not convincing because the phrasing "at least one portion unconnected to one another" is broader than the Example and the rest of the specification. For example "at least one portion unconnected to one another" encompasses more than one portion unconnected to one another, and does not specify how big the portion(s?) is. The specification does not contain the "at least one portion unconnected" language and does not describe more then one portion unconnected. The specification also describes a specific size for the sewed (connected) portion in the example, only, and not a generic phrase encompassing any size.
Claims 47 and 57 recite “wherein the at least four overlappinq layers of the single strip of material are unconnected to one another along a second portion of the length of the single strip of material adjacent to the first portion thereof”. In Remarks 10/30/25 applicant cites the Example in which only 40mm of sling circumference is stitched- i.e. the rest is unconnected- to support the new claim phrase. This is not found convincing because the specification also describes a specific size for the sewed (connected) portion in the example, only, and not a generic phrase encompassing any size.
Claims 23-25, 30-44, 48-56, 58-62 depend on the independent claims and do not remedy these deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The rejection in the previous action of claims 47, 50-55 are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over WO 0017085 by Demsey et al in view of US 3995506 by Poe is repeated and amended below to reflect applicant’s amendment. New claims 57-61 are rejected under the same premise.
Regarding claim 47, Demsey describes a chain comprising a chain element, wherein the chain element comprises an endless shaped article (“sling loop component”) (p.5 In 20-25).
Demsey describes a loop component comprising a single twist, i.e. an odd multiple of 180 degrees, in the single loop (single loop equivalent to an instant single convolution/layer) (p.5 In 35-40). Demsey describes attaching the ends of the strip by overlapping the loop ends and sewing (stitching) the overlap (p.5 In 21-24), which reads on the “overlapped” language in the penultimate instant phrase. Sewing is a “fastening element” which connects opposed ends to one another.
Demsey describes the loop as made of a polymer chain (synthetic) (p.8 final line-p.9 line 2), which is woven (p.4 ln 15-20).
Demsey is silent as to there being more than one convolution/layer.
Poe describes a loop with a single (Mobius) twist, like Demsey.
Poe describes the loop as composed of a single strip of material that contains several laminae (equivalent to instant convolutions which are coiled into overlapping layers) (col 2 ln30-50). Poe describes at least two convolutions (layers), see e.g. Fig.5 and claim 2. Notably Poe states “more than two laminations may be employed to provide higher tensil strength” (col 2 ln 48-50). This overlaps with the claimed “four overlapping layers” in the instant penultimate phrase. Poe states that the advantage to several laminae is superior mechanical integrity rendering longer life, greater wear resistance and higher tensile strength (col 1 In 53-59). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a single strip to make several layers where Demsey only describes one in order to give the loop greater longevity, greater wear resistance and higher tensile strength. Notably Demsey values strength (p.2 final paragraph).
Regarding the overlapping range of numbers of layers in Poe vs instant: In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to arrive at values in the claimed range because Poe describes values overlapping with the claimed range.
Regarding the penultimate phrase regarding a strip end superimposed by respective adjacent layers, as applicant states in Remarks of 6/20/25 p.13, when one forms a Mobius strip with more than one layer, the initial end “will necessarily be superimposed by respective adjacent layers of the strip of material”.
Regarding the new final phrase “the at least four overlapping layers….are unconnected to one another along a second portion”, Demsey describes attaching the ends of the strip by overlapping the loop ends and sewing (stitching) the overlap (p.5 In 21-24). The overlap reads on the instant “first portion”.. Demsey’s stitching of the ends reads on a first portion of overlapping ends (Demsey’s stitched region) and a second region which is unconnected to one another. Demsey states that sewing with heavy thread contributes to sufficient strength for lifting purposes (p.5 ln 23-25).
Regarding claim 50, Demsey describes attaching the ends of the strip by overlapping the loop ends and sewing (stitching) the overlap (p.5 In 21-24), thus the multiple layers would overlap along some portion that is stitched thru.
Regarding claim 51 and 52, Demsey describes attaching the ends of the strip by overlapping the loop ends and sewing (stitching) the overlap (p.5 In 21-24). Sewing is a “fastening element” which connects opposed ends to one another.
Regarding claim 53, Poe describes using adhesive between the convolutions (laminae) (col 3 In 54-58).
Regarding claim 54, Poe states “more than two laminations may be employed to provide higher tensil strength” (col 2 ln 48-50). This value- more than 2- overlaps with the claimed 8 convolutions. Regarding the overlapping range of numbers of layers in Poe vs instant: In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to arrive at values in the claimed range because Poe describes values overlapping with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 55, Demsey describes an O-shaped ring with a single 180-degree twist (p.5 In 35-40), as does Poe (abstract, Fig.4-6).
Regarding claim 57, Demsey describes a chain comprising a chain element, wherein the chain element comprises an endless shaped article (“sling loop component”) (p.5 In 20-25).
Demsey describes a loop component comprising a single twist, i.e. an odd multiple of 180 degrees, in the single loop (single loop equivalent to an instant single convolution/layer) (p.5 In 35-40). Demsey describes the loop as made of a woven material (p.4 ln 15-20).
Demsey describes attaching the ends of the strip by overlapping the loop ends and sewing (stitching) the overlap (p.5 In 21-24), which reads on the “overlapped” language in the penultimate instant phrase. Sewing is a “fastening element” which connects opposed ends to one another. Demsey’s sewing also reads on the final phrase wherein Demsey’s overlapping layers are unconnected to one another where they are not sewed.
Demsey is silent as to there being more than one convolution/layer.
Poe describes a loop with a single (Mobius) twist, like Demsey.
Poe describes the loop as composed of a single strip of material that contains several laminae (equivalent to instant strip which is coiled into overlapping layers) (col 2 ln30-50). Poe describes at least two layers, see e.g. Fig.5 and claim 2. Notably Poe states “more than two laminations may be employed to provide higher tensil strength” (col 2 ln 48-50). This overlaps with the claimed “four overlapping layers” in the instant third phrase. Poe states that the advantage to several laminae is superior mechanical integrity rendering longer life, greater wear resistance and higher tensile strength (col 1 In 53-59). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a single strip to make several layers where Demsey only describes one in order to give the loop greater longevity, greater wear resistance and higher tensile strength. Notably Demsey values strength (p.2 final paragraph).
Regarding the overlapping range of numbers of layers in Poe vs instant: In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to arrive at values in the claimed range because Poe describes values overlapping with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 58, Demsey describes stitching (p.5 In 21-24).
Regarding claim 59, Poe depicts superimposed layers and Demsey depicts the ends overlapping and sewn (stitched). Demsey states that sewing with heavy thread contributes to sufficient strength for lifting purposes (p.5 ln 23-25).
Regarding claim 60, Poe depicts the layers flush together, i.e. having minimal difference in length (Poe Fig.5). Both Poe and Demsey depict fabric with small thicknesses (Demsey Fig.1, Poe Fig. 4-5), but since the adjacent layers are flush one of ordinary skill would reasonably expect the difference in their length to be minimal, i.e. less than 4x the thickness of the layers.
Regarding claim 61, Poe states “more than two laminations may be employed to provide higher tensil strength” meaning any more than 2 layers may be applied with increasing tensile strength as motivation (col 2 ln 45-50). Poe describes “a large number of laminations may be obtained” (col 2 ln 42). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to arrive at values in the claimed range because Poe describes values overlapping with the claimed range.
The rejection in the previous action of claims 18, 23-25, 30-36, 38-44, 48, 49, 56 under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over WO 0017085 by Demsey et al in view of US 3995506 by Poe in further view of US 20100077718 by Wienke is repeated and amended below to reflect applicant’s amendment. New claim 62 is rejected under the same premise. Specifically,
Demsey describes a lifting sling system.
Regarding claim 18, Demsey describes a chain comprising a chain element, wherein the chain element comprises an endless shaped article (“sling loop component”) (p.5 In 20-25).
Demsey describes a loop component comprising a single twist, i.e. an odd multiple of 180 degrees, in the single loop (single loop equivalent to an instant single convolution/layer) (p.5 In 35-40). Demsey describes attaching the ends of the strip by overlapping the loop ends and sewing (stitching) the overlap (p.5 In 21-24), which reads on the “overlapped” language in the penultimate instant phrase. Sewing is a “fastening element” which connects opposed ends to one another.
Demsey describes the loop as made of a polymer chain (synthetic) (p.8 final line-p.9 line 2), but is silent as to UHMWPE. Demsey is also silent as to there being more than one convolution/layer.
Weinke also describes a chain comprising interconnected loops.
Weinke states that using ultra high molecular weight polyethylene yarns in the chain links improves service life of chains (paragraph 6). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use UHMWPE fiber in Demsey’s belt where Demsey is silent as to the material identity because it improves the service life of chains.
Poe describes a loop with a single (Mobius) twist, like Demsey.
Poe describes the loop as composed of a single strip of material that contains several laminae (equivalent to instant convolutions which are coiled into overlapping layers) (col 2 ln30-50). Poe describes at least two convolutions (layers), see e.g. Fig.5 and claim 2. Notably Poe states “more than two laminations may be employed to provide higher tensil strength” (col 2 ln 48-50). This overlaps with the claimed “four overlapping layers” in the instant penultimate phrase. Poe states that the advantage to several laminae is superior mechanical integrity rendering longer life, greater wear resistance and higher tensile strength (col 1 In 53-59). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a single strip to make several layers where Demsey only describes one in order to give the loop greater longevity, greater wear resistance and higher tensile strength. Notably Demsey values strength (p.2 final paragraph).
Regarding the overlapping range of numbers of layers in Poe vs instant: In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to arrive at values in the claimed range because Poe describes values overlapping with the claimed range.
Regarding the instant phrase regarding a strip end superimposed by respective adjacent layers, as applicant states in Remarks of 6/20/25 p.13, when one forms a Mobius strip with more than one layer, the initial end “will necessarily be superimposed by respective adjacent layers of the strip of material”.
Regarding the instant final phrases, Demsey and Poe depict convolutions flush together, thus one or ordinary skill would reasonably expect a minor difference in length between two adjacent convolutions to be less than 6 times the thickness.
Regarding the new phrase at the end of claim 18, Demsey describes attaching the ends of the strip by overlapping the loop ends and sewing (stitching) the overlap (p.5 In 21-24). The attachment method of Poe (adhesive along the length of the convolution) and/or Demsey is obvious to one of ordinary skill given the two disclosures because a) Demsey is primary art and thus can be followed by one of ordinary skill first considering it and b) Poe’s adhesive is effective in his multiple layers. Demsey’s stitching of the ends reads on “at least one portion of the length…are unconnected to one another.”
Regarding claim 23, Demsey describes attaching the ends of the strip by overlapping the loop ends and sewing (stitching) the overlap (p.5 In 21-24). Sewing is a “fastening element” which connects opposed ends to one another.
Regarding claim 24, Demsey describes sewing (p.5 ln 21-24), i.e. stitching.
Regarding claim 25, Poe describes using adhesive between the convolutions (laminae) (col 3 In 54-58).
Regarding claims 30, 31 and 34, Poe depicts the layers as in contact throughout their length (Fig.5) and describes the layers as glued together with adhesive (claim 1), thus the difference in length of one layer vs the average length in Demsey in view of Poe is minimal and less than 2 times the thickness of the strip of material. Notably the instant specification states that the difference in length of convolutions depends strongly on the tightness towards adjacent convolutions (instant specification p.3 ln 36-p.4 ln 2), and since Poe describes adhesive bonding his layers these are considered quite tight (Poe claim 1).
Regarding claim 32 and 33, Poe depicts the layers as in contact throughout their length (Fig.5) and describes the layers as glued together with adhesive (claim 1), thus the difference in length of two adjacent layers in Demsey in view of Poe is minimal and less than 4 times the thickness of the strip of material.
Regarding claim 35, Demsey and Poe describe a strip making up almost the entirety of the article (loop), minus small amounts of stitching and adhesive (see Poe Fig.6, Demsey Fig.1). Therefore the article’s density is expected to be close to 100% of the density of the strip material.
Regarding claim 36, Demsey describes weaving broadly (e.g. Demsey p.4 ln 15-20) and Weinke describes plain or twill weave specifically (paragraph 22). One of ordinary skill would use Weinke’s weave where Demsey is not as specific in order ensure the advantage of extended service life described by Weinke (paragraph 6).
Regarding claim 38, Poe states “more than two laminations may be employed to provide higher tensil strength” (col 2 ln 48-50). This value- more than 2- overlaps with the claimed 8 convolutions. Regarding the overlapping range of numbers of layers in Poe vs instant: In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to arrive at values in the claimed range because Poe describes values overlapping with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 39, Demsey describes an O-shaped ring with a single 180-degree twist (p.5 In 35-40), as does Poe (abstract, Fig.4-6).
Regarding claims 40, 41 and 56, Demsey is silent as to the ratio of width to thickness. However, Weinke, who also describes a chain composed of loops which is load-bearing, states that the ratio of width:thickness is preferably at least 10:1 and at most 20:1 (paragraph 22). This thickness is clearly the total thickness of the loop, i.e. all layers of Demsey in view of Poe. In the obvious case of four layers, the thickness of the strip would be instead of 10:1 to 20:1, 40:1 to 80:1.
The motivation to use this ratio is that the links of the chain are more easily accessible for attachment means (Weinke paragraph 22).
Regarding claim 42, see rejection of claims 40 and 41 directly above. In addition, Weinke describes the width of the strap as preferably 2-25cm. If the strap -as encouraged by Weinke- has a width:thickness ratio of for example 60:1, a strap with a width of 3cm would have a thickness of 5mm. Thus Weinke teaches a range overlapping with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 43, Weinke describes the ideal UHMWPE as having an intrinsic viscosity of 5-40 dl/g (paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 44, Demsey describes woven polymer broadly (e.g. Demsey p.4 ln 15-20) and Weinke describes n-ply webbing where n is most preferably 2 (paragraph 22). One of ordinary skill would use Weinke’s n-ply webbing where Demsey is not as specific in order ensure the advantage of extended service life described by Weinke (paragraph 6).
Regarding claim 48, Weinke states that using ultra high molecular weight polyethylene yarns in the chain links improves service life of chains (paragraph 6). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use UHMWPE fiber in Demsey’s belt where Demsey is silent as to the material identity because it improves the service life of chains.
Regarding claim 49, Weinke describes the ideal UHMWPE as having an intrinsic viscosity of 5-40 dl/g (paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 62, Demsey describes the loop as made of a polymer chain (synthetic) (p.8 final line-p.9 line 2), but is silent as to UHMWPE. Demsey is also silent as to there being more than one convolution/layer.
Weinke also describes a chain comprising interconnected loops.
Weinke states that using ultra high molecular weight polyethylene yarns in the chain links improves service life of chains (paragraph 6). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use UHMWPE fiber in Demsey’s belt where Demsey is silent as to the material identity because it improves the service life of chains.
Allowable Subject Matter
In the previous action claim 37 was objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim. However, now claim 37 is subject to 112(a) new matter rejection, and therefore it can no longer be indicated as “objected to but would be allowable”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument p.9 of Remarks submitted 10/30/25 has been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant cites the Example in which only 40mm of sling circumference is stitched- i.e. the rest is unconnected- to support the claim phrase for "at least one portion unconnected to one another". This is not convincing because the phrasing "at least one portion unconnected to one another" is broader than the Example and the rest of the specification. For example "at least one portion unconnected to one another" encompasses more than one portion unconnected to one another, and does not specify how big the portion(s?) is. The specification does not contain the "at least one portion unconnected" language and does not describe more then one portion unconnected. The specification also describes a specific size for the portion in the example, only, and not a generic phrase encompassing any size.
Applicant's argument p.10-11 has been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant describes adhesive present in Poe's sling, but Poe is not relied upon to provide the connection; this is provided by primary reference Demsey. Demsey describes stitching the ends, meaning the rest of the length is unconnected, as is now claimed. Demsey states that the stitching contributes to the strength (p.5 ln 24-25), motivating one of ordinary skill to keep Demsey’s attachment method.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTINA W ROSEBACH whose telephone number is (571)270-7154. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-3:30pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 5712721302. 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.
/CHRISTINA H.W. ROSEBACH/Examiner, Art Unit 1766