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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment dated 4/17/2026 has been considered and entered into the record. Claim 25 has been amended to overcome its objection. New claims 26–30 have been added. Pending claims 1, 2, 7–9, 13–17, and 21–30 are examined below.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 13, 21, and 26–30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duncan (US 2005/0084674 A1) in view of Romick (US 2017/0183506 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, such as anhydride-modified HDPE.
Romick teaches the formation of a protective coating for a variety of end use applications including reinforcing bars. Romick abstract, ¶ 99. The protective coating comprises non-functionalized HDPE and a polymeric performance improving agent, such as maleic anhydride-functionalized HDPE. Id. ¶¶ 45–47, 59–63.
The ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have added the maleic anhydride-functionalized HDPE as a polymeric performance improving agent to the HDPE coating of Duncan motivated by the desire to simultaneously provide particular performance characteristics, such as particular appearance properties and particular mechanical and chemical resistance properties for a coated article. See Romick ¶ 59.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Duncan with the teachings of Bymark. In particular, Applicant contends that because Duncan uses a single protective polymer layer, it would not have been obvious to have modified the tie wire of Duncan with an intermediary layer, such as the epoxy resin/maleated-anhydride PE layer of Bymark. This argument is unpersuasive as the intermediary layer of Bymark is specifically designed to improve the adhesion of polyethylene layers to metal, such as those in Duncan. Accordingly, the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the two teachings to arrive at a tie wire with protective coating that better adheres to the underlying metal wire.
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 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
Prosecution Insights