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 response filed on June 25, 2026, has been entered. Claims 5 – 6 have been canceled. Claims 1 and 7 have been amended. Claims 1 – 4 and 7 – 20 are pending. Claims 8, 9, and 11 – 20 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The rejection over Baer et al. (2007/0243356) is withdrawn since the tubular fabric teaches using combination of different weave patterns.
The amendment to claim 1 is sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 112 rejection to the term “resistant to heat”.
The cancelation of claims 5 and 6 renders moot the rejections to those claims.
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 – 4, 7 and 10 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. The disclosure fails to teach the weave pattern must be “constant” throughout the entire fabric. Instead, the disclosure teaches that the woven fabric to be woven in any desired pattern (Specification, paragraph 28). And even though the disclosure teaches specific patterns such as plain weave, twill weave, satin weave, or basket weave can be used it does not teach that the patterns cannot be used in combination. The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. See Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983), 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Thus, since the applicant did not teach the concept of excluding combination of weave patterns in the original disclosure, it is considered to be new matter. Claims 2 – 4, 7, and 10 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim1 – 4, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The phrase “in a constant pattern” in claim 1 is indefinite. It is unclear what features of the weave pattern have to be constant to meet the claim limitation. Can different combinations of yarns, with different sizes, materials, or structures be used in a constant pattern? Or would any changes between the yarns, spacing, and materials be excluded from the term “constant”? Claims 2 – 4, 7, and 10 are rejected due to their dependency.
The term “high tenacity polyester” in claim 3 is not defined. It is unclear what level of tenacity is considered to be high. The term “high” is a relative term. Thus, the polyester material needs only have a tenacity that is higher than a weak fiber or a fiber with the minimum level of tenacity. The applicant argues that the term “high tenacity polyester” is well known? However, the applicant fails to provide specific evidence that clarifies what the minimum level of tenacity is needed to be considered a “high tenacity polyester”. The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence. In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Polyester fibers are available with a wide range of tenacities. What does the applicant consider high tenacity?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Relats Manent et al. (2010/0108171).
Relats Manent et al. discloses a protective sheath comprising a tubular shape with interwoven first threads and second threads (abstract). The sheath can include a protective cover on its inner or outer surface (abstract). The first threads can be multi-filament aramid threads that are resistant to fire, and the second fibers can be monofilament PEEK fibers or polyester threads (paragraphs 14 and 15). Further, the sheath can be coated with a silicone resin (paragraph 16). The interwoven fabric is considered to produce a constant pattern. Thus, claims 1 and 2 are anticipated. Further, the woven fabric includes a first set of yarns running longitudinally to the length of the sleeve as shown from the end view (Figure 3). The woven fabric further includes a second set of yarns that run perpendicular to the first set, which would be transverse to the central longitudinal axis. Thus, claim 7 is anticipated.
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.
14. Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Relats Manent et al. in view of Horne (4,276,908).
The features of Relats Manent et al. have been set forth above. Relats Manent et al. discloses that the polyester fibers can be used in the sleeve (paragraph 15). Horne is drawn to a woven tubular fabric. Horne teaches that high tenacity polyester yarns are known in the art under the trademark DACRON or TERYLENE (column 2, lines 34 – 45). The polyester yarns have excellent high tenacity and can be less expensive, have lower elongation, and do not absorb much moisture. Thus, it would have been obvious to choose high tenacity polyester yarns to improve the tenacity and strength properties of the fabric having low elongation properties. Thus, claims 3 and 4 are rejected.
15. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Relats Manent et al. and Horne as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kaing et al. (2019/0211482).
The features of Relats Manent et al. and Horne have been set forth above. While Relats Manent et al. teaches a woven tubular sleeve fabric to protect wires, Relats Manent et al. fails to teach making the fabric have a continuous wall. Kaing et al. is drawn to tubular textile sleeve fabrics for protecting wires (Abstract). Kaing et al. discloses that the tubular sleeve has a continuous circumference (abstract). Thus, as taught by Kaing et al. it is known to make tubular textile sleeves with continuous walls. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the tubular sleeve of Relats Manent et al. with a continuous wall to provide protection and remain fixed in place. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) June 25, 2026, 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
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 Jenna Johnson whose telephone number is (571)272-1472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday, 10am - 4pm.
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 at (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.
jlj
September 12, 2026
/JENNA L JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights