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 § 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, 5-10, 13-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Relats et al. (EP 3012930) in view of Malloy et al. (KR 20080106962) in view of (NL 7906361 hereinafter referred to as ‘361) as evidenced by PG Pub. 2010/0084179, GB 2277206 and PG Pub. 2017/0092391.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Relats et al. teach a textile sleeve (1) for routing and protecting elongate members comprising a wall including an interlaced textile layer (layer 5) having an inner surface and an opposite outer surface extending widthwise from opposite edges and extending lengthwise between opposite ends and the opposite edges being configured to be wrapped about a central longitudinal axis to bound the elongate member by a cavity bound by the inner surface with the interlaced textile being formed form yarns interlaced with one another and at least some of the yarns include multifilaments (7) resistant to heat and monofilaments (8) resistant to heat and a silicone based coating (6) adhered to the outer surface of the textile layer [Abstract, 0002, 0007, 0011, 0013]. The yarns extend warp yarns extending generally parallel to the central longitudinal axis and weft yarns extending generally transversely to a central longitudinal axis and the warp yarns being woven with the weft yarns [0007-0012, 0025-0032 and Fig. 1]. Relats et al. teach the warp yarns are provided entirely by the multifilaments resistant to heat and the weft yarns are provided including the monofilaments resistant to heat [0020-0021]. Relats et al. are silent regarding the claimed weft yarns includes multifilaments resistant to heat. However, Malloy et al. teach using multifilament with monofilament in the weft in order to provide stiffness, strength, flexibility and heat setting. Malloy et al. teach using heat settable monofilaments and also teach heat resistant multifilaments in order to provide heat resistance with improved strength and stiffness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use multifilament heat resistant weft yarns of Malloy et al. in Relats et al. in order to provide heat resistance with improved strength and stiffness. Further, given the teachings of Malloy et al. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed monofilament and heat resistant multifilaments in the weft given the teachings of Malloy of the choice of materials for the weft as being a results effective variable and given the limited number of options. The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed closure member. However, ‘361 teaches a closure member fixed along one of the opposite edges with the closure member having an adhesive surface configured for adhesion to an outer surface of the wall to maintain opposite edges of the wall in overlapping relation to one another and the closure member is silicone pressure sensitive adhesive in order to ensure the proper closure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the closure member of ‘361 in the previous combination in order to ensure proper closure is maintained and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, Relats et al. are silent regarding the claimed multifilaments being meta-aramid. However, it would have been obvious to have the multifilaments be meta-aramid as is known in the art and evidenced by PG Pub. 2010/0084179 in order to tailor the sheath/sleeve properties and arrive at the claimed invention. In the alternative, Malloy et al. teach using meta-aramid multifilaments in order to provide heat resistance and stiffness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the meta-aramid multifilaments of Malloy et al. in the previous combination in order to provide heat resistance and stiffness and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 6-7, The previous combination is regarding the claimed the warp and weft multifilament deniers and monofilament diameter. However, it would have been obvious to arrive at the claimed warp and weft multifilament diameter and monofilament diameter as it would have been obvious to select the denier of the warp and weft multifilaments to affect the flexibility, stiffness, self-closing property and other properties of the sheath/sleeve especially given the wide denier range claimed and arrive at the claimed invention. Further, Malloy et al. teach the monofilament diameter in the claimed range in order to provide monofilaments that provide a desired amount of flexibility, strength and heat setting. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the monofilament weft diameter of Malloy et al. in the previous combination in order to provide a desired amount of flexibility, strength and heat setting and arrive at the claimed invention. Further, in the alternative, Qin et al. teach warp and weft multifilaments with dtex in the claimed range in order to achieve the desired sleeve properties including strength, flexibility, thinness or loft. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the warp and weft multifilament dtex in the previous combination in order to achieve the desired sleeve properties including strength, flexibility, thinness or loft and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, the monofilaments resistant to heat are PEEK [0011].
Regarding claim 9, Relat et al. are silent regarding the claimed silicone based coating includes at least one flame retardant and a heat stabilizer. However, Chen et al. teach silicone based coating comprises magnesium hydroxide (considered to be the flame retardant) and zinc borate (considered to be the heat stabilizer) in order to improve flame retardancy. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the silicone coating containing flame retardant and heat stabilizer of Chen et al. in the previous combination in order to provide flame retardancy and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, Relat et al. teach the silicone based coating has a thickness in the claimed range [0026].
Regarding claim 12, ‘361 teaches the adhesive is configured for fixed adhesion to the inner surface and outer surface by virtue of closing the inner surface to the outer surface of the wall in order to ensure the sheath remains properly closed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the closure member of ‘361 in the previous combination in order to ensure proper closure is maintained and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 13-14, the previous combination is silent regarding the claimed tape. However, it would have been obvious to use silicone amalgamating tape for a closure member as is known in the art as evidenced by GB 2277206 and PG Pub. 2017/0092391. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a silicone pressure sensitive adhesive bonded to the tape to improve adhesion as is known in the art and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 15, Relats et al. teach a method of constructing a textile sleeve for routing and protecting an elongate member against arcing, exposure to high temperatures and fire, abrasion and fluid ingres comprising interlacing heat resistant yarn to form an interlaced textile layer (layer 5) of a wall having opposite edges extending lengthwise between opposite ends, with the opposite edges being configured to be wrapped about a central longitudinal axis to bound the elongate member within a an enclosed cavity and bonding a silicone based coating on an outer surface of the interlaced textile layer [Abstract, 0002, 0007, 0011, 0013]. The yarns being interlaced with one another and being woven (weaving process) [0007-0012, 0025-0032 and Fig. 1]. The method includes weaving the yarns including warp yarns extending generally parallel to the central longitudinal axis entirely from multifilaments resistant to heat and weft yarns extending generally transversely to warp yarns including monofilaments [0007-0012, 0025-0032 and Fig. 1].
The recitation in the claims that the sleeve is “for protecting against” the recited things arcing” is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that the cited art disclose the sleeve as presently claimed, it is clear that the sleeve of the cited art would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. protecting against the recited things, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Relats et al. are silent regarding the claimed weft yarns includes multifilaments resistant to heat. However, Malloy et al. teach using multifilament with monofilament in the weft in order to provide stiffness, strength, flexibility and heat setting. Malloy et al. teach using heat settable monofilaments and also teach heat resistant multifilaments in order to provide heat resistance with improved strength and stiffness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use multifilament heat resistant weft yarns of Malloy et al. in Relats et al. in order to provide heat resistance with improved strength and stiffness. Further, given the teachings of Malloy et al. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed monofilament and heat resistant multifilaments in the weft given the teachings of Malloy of the choice of materials for the weft as being a results effective variable and given the limited number of options. Relat et al. is regarding the claimed the warp and weft multifilament deniers and monofilament diameter. However, it would have been obvious to arrive at the claimed warp and weft multifilament diameter and monofilament diameter as it would have been obvious to select the denier of the warp and weft multifilaments to affect the flexibility, stiffness, self-closing property and other properties of the sheath/sleeve especially given the wide denier range claimed and arrive at the claimed invention. Further, Malloy et al. teach the monofilament diameter in the claimed range in order to provide monofilaments that provide a desired amount of flexibility, strength and heat setting. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the monofilament weft diameter of Malloy et al. in Relats et al. in order to provide a desired amount of flexibility, strength and heat setting and arrive at the claimed invention. The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed closure member. However, ‘361 teaches a closure member fixed along one of the opposite edges with the closure member having an adhesive surface configured for adhesion to an outer surface of the wall to maintain opposite edges of the wall in overlapping relation to one another and the closure member is silicone pressure sensitive adhesive in order to ensure the proper closure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the closure member of ‘361 in the previous combination in order to ensure proper closure is maintained and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 18, Relats et al. teach heat setting the monofilaments to impart heat formed bias in the wall to maintain opposite edged in overlapping relation to one another.
Claims 6-7, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Relats et al. (EP 3012930) in view of Malloy et al. (KR 20080106962) in view of (NL 7906361 hereinafter referred to as ‘361) in further view of Qin et al. (PG Pub. 2018/0062364) as evidenced by PG Pub. 2010/0084179, GB 2277206 and PG Pub. 2017/0092391.
Regarding claims 6-7, The previous combination is regarding the claimed the warp and weft multifilament deniers and monofilament diameter. However, it would have been obvious to arrive at the claimed warp and weft multifilament diameter and monofilament diameter as it would have been obvious to select the denier of the warp and weft multifilaments to affect the flexibility, stiffness, self-closing property and other properties of the sheath/sleeve especially given the wide denier range claimed and arrive at the claimed invention. Further, Malloy et al. teach the monofilament diameter in the claimed range in order to provide monofilaments that provide a desired amount of flexibility, strength and heat setting. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the monofilament weft diameter of Malloy et al. in the previous combination in order to provide a desired amount of flexibility, strength and heat setting and arrive at the claimed invention. Further, in the alternative, Qiu et al. teach warp and weft multifilaments with dtex in the claimed range in order to achieve the desired sleeve properties including strength, flexibility, thinness or loft. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the warp and weft multifilament dtex of Qiu et al. in the previous combination in order to achieve the desired sleeve properties including strength, flexibility, thinness or loft and arrive at the claimed invention. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Regarding claim 15, Relats et al. teach a method of constructing a textile sleeve for routing and protecting an elongate member against arcing, exposure to high temperatures and fire, abrasion and fluid ingres comprising interlacing heat resistant yarn to form an interlaced textile layer (layer 5) of a wall having opposite edges extending lengthwise between opposite ends, with the opposite edges being configured to be wrapped about a central longitudinal axis to bound the elongate member within a an enclosed cavity and bonding a silicone based coating on an outer surface of the interlaced textile layer [Abstract, 0002, 0007, 0011, 0013]. The yarns being interlaced with one another and being woven (weaving process) [0007-0012, 0025-0032 and Fig. 1]. The method includes weaving the yarns including warp yarns extending generally parallel to the central longitudinal axis entirely from multifilaments resistant to heat and weft yarns extending generally transversely to warp yarns including monofilaments [0007-0012, 0025-0032 and Fig. 1].
The recitation in the claims that the sleeve is “for protecting against” the recited things arcing” is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that the cited art disclose the sleeve as presently claimed, it is clear that the sleeve of the cited art would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. protecting against the recited things, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Relats et al. are silent regarding the claimed weft yarns includes multifilaments resistant to heat. However, Malloy et al. teach using multifilament with monofilament in the weft in order to provide stiffness, strength, flexibility and heat setting. Malloy et al. teach using heat settable monofilaments and also teach heat resistant multifilaments in order to provide heat resistance with improved strength and stiffness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use multifilament heat resistant weft yarns of Malloy et al. in Relats et al. in order to provide heat resistance with improved strength and stiffness. Further, given the teachings of Malloy et al. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed monofilament and heat resistant multifilaments in the weft given the teachings of Malloy of the choice of materials for the weft as being a results effective variable and given the limited number of options. Relat et al. is regarding the claimed the warp and weft multifilament deniers and monofilament diameter. However, it would have been obvious to arrive at the claimed warp and weft multifilament diameter and monofilament diameter as it would have been obvious to select the denier of the warp and weft multifilaments to affect the flexibility, stiffness, self-closing property and other properties of the sheath/sleeve especially given the wide denier range claimed and arrive at the claimed invention. Further, Malloy et al. teach the monofilament diameter in the claimed range in order to provide monofilaments that provide a desired amount of flexibility, strength and heat setting. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the monofilament weft diameter of Malloy et al. in Relats et al. in order to provide a desired amount of flexibility, strength and heat setting and arrive at the claimed invention. Further, in the alternative, Qiu et al. teach warp and weft multifilaments with dtex in the claimed range in order to achieve the desired sleeve properties including strength, flexibility, thinness or loft. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the warp and weft multifilament dtex of Qiu et al. in the previous combination in order to achieve the desired sleeve properties including strength, flexibility, thinness or loft and arrive at the claimed invention. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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). The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed closure member. However, ‘361 teaches a closure member fixed along one of the opposite edges with the closure member having an adhesive surface configured for adhesion to an outer surface of the wall to maintain opposite edges of the wall in overlapping relation to one another and the closure member is silicone pressure sensitive adhesive in order to ensure the proper closure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the closure member of ‘361 in the previous combination in order to ensure proper closure is maintained and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 18, Relats et al. teach heat setting the monofilaments to impart heat formed bias in the wall to maintain opposite edged in overlapping relation to one another.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the cited art, including Malloy does not teach the weft yarns are provided including multifilaments and there is no teaching of providing multifilaments in the weft direction in Malloy and the only inclusion of multifilaments is in the warp direction in Malloy. This is not the case. Malloy states “The warp and weft of this stiffness differ from the warp and weft yarns and can be provided as multifilament yarns”. Malloy further teaches “The selection of materials for monofilament and multifilament warp and weft (12, 14) can be selected from a number of materials, and a combination of the number of materials including refractory materials can be used.”. Therefore, it is abundantly clear Malloy does in fact teach multifilaments in the weft direction in order to provide stiffness, strength, flexibility and heat setting and one of ordinary skill in the art would use the teachings of Malloy in Relats and arrive at the claimed invention.
Applicant argues to have discovered an inventive smaller range of denier and argues Qin teaches a broad range and does not teach the warp and weft having different denier. As stated in the rejection, it would have been obvious to arrive at the claimed warp and weft multifilament diameter and monofilament diameter as it would have been obvious to select the denier of the warp and weft multifilaments to affect the flexibility, stiffness, self-closing property and other properties of the sheath/sleeve especially given the wide denier range claimed and arrive at the claimed invention. It is further noted, the present claim language does not require the warp and weft to have different deniers. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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). Therefore, the present claims are not allowable.
Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
Art not Used but Relevant
PG Pub. 2017/0092391 teaches amalgamating tape.
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 SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm 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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789