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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/26/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment dated 9/26/2025 has been considered and entered into the record. The amendment overcomes the previous new matter rejection as the amended claims no longer refer to weight percentages for the components of the coating. Claims 3–6, 10–12, and 18–20 have been cancelled. New claims 23–25 have been added. Claims 1, 2, 7–9, 13–17, and 21–25 are pending and are examined below.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 9 be found allowable, claim 25 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claim 24 should be renumbered 25 for examination purposes.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7–9, 13–17, and 21–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duncan (US 2005/0084674 A1) in view of Bymark (WO 97/13589 A1).
Duncan teaches a metal wire product for rebar tying applications, where in the wire comprises an inner wire portion 210 and a coating layer 220 arranged on an outward facing surface of the wire. Duncan abstract, ¶ 17, Fig.2. The coated layer may comprise high density polyethylene (HDPE), hot melt adhesive, and may further comprise a coloring agent. Id. ¶¶ 5, 6, 8, 20, 29. The hot melt adhesive serves to bond the coating layer to the surface of the wire. Id. ¶ 29.
Duncan fails to teach the use of a bonding agent comprising a reactive adhesive.
Bymark teaches an epoxy composition comprising dispersed adhesive promoters to enhance adhesion to polyethylene and multi-layer composite coating systems useful for corrosion prevention to metal substrates such as reinforcing bars. Bymark abstract, 1:4–7 The dispersed adhesive promoter of the epoxy composition may comprise maleated-anhydride polyethylene. Id. at 3:10–12, 29–31. As such, the epoxy composition of Bymark may comprise an epoxy resin, an anhydride-modified polyethylene, and a polyethylene resin. Id. at 3:14–18.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the HDPE coating layer of Duncan with the epoxy composition of Bymark to further prevent corrosion on the metal wire product.
Claims 21–24 are rejected as it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used a high-density polyethylene as the dispersed adhesive promoter in Bymark as it would be compositionally similar to the HDPE used in Duncan thereby further enhancing the adhesion between the epoxy and HDPE. See Bymark at 4:15–23.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 7–9, 13–17, and 21–25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D MATZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-5732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571.272.7783. 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.
/MATTHEW D MATZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786