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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, and the species drawn to a woven tubular fabric with a continuous wall, claims 1 – 7 and 10, in the reply filed on December 29, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 8, 9, and 11 – 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1 – 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 “resistant to heat” in claim 1 is indefinite. The claim and disclosure fail to teach what level of resistance to heat is considered sufficient to qualify as resistant to heat. Most fibers have a temperature above which the fibers will melt, burn, or decompose. What level does the fiber need to withstand to be considered to resistant to heat? Claim 5 is similarly rejected. Claims 2 – 4 and 6, 7, and 10 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 5.
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 need only have a tenacity that is higher than a weak fiber or a fiber with the minimum level of tenacity.
The term “cut resistant” in claim 6 is indefinite. The claims and the disclosure fails to teach what level of cut resistance is required by the claims. Does the claim require fibers that have a high degree of cut resistance such as Kevlar fibers, or would fibers with high strength properties that are harder to cut than soft cotton yarns qualify as cut resistance?
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 5 recites that the sleeve includes at least some yarns that are resistant to heat. However, claim 1, from which claim 4 depends states that the at least some of the yarns include multifilaments or monofilaments that are resistant to heat. Thus, it appears the recitation of claim 5 repeats the earlier recitation in claim Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baer et al. (2007/0243356).
Baer et al. discloses a woven sleeve comprising a lower and upper region comprising warp direction filament yarns and fill direction filament yarns which run in perpendicular directions to each other (paragraph 22). The fill or pick yarns run across that fabric and the warp yarns run along the length of the fabric (Figure 5). The yarns can be filament or monofilament yarns (paragraph 22). Further, Baer et al. teaches that depending on the performance requirements different materials can be used in the fabric including polyester or nylon yarns and fire retardant versions of these materials (Paragraph 22). Baer et al. discloses that even higher temperature rated fire retardant materials such as aramids, PEI, PPS, and PEEK fibers can also be used (paragraph 22). The sleeve can wrap around tubing or wire bundles (paragraph 21).
Thus, claims 1 and 2 are rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baer et al. in view of Horne (4,276,908).
The features of Baer et al. have been set forth above. Baer et al. discloses that the fibers can be chosen based on the desired properties of the end product, including polyester fibers (paragraph 22). Horne is drawn to a woven tubular fabric. Horne teaches that high tenacity polyester yarns are know 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 will having low elongation properties. Thus, claim3 and 4 are rejected.
Further, Baer et al. teaches that the polyester yarns can include fire retardant additives or the fabric can also include fibers with stronger fire resistance properties such as p-aramid fibers (paragraph 22). Improved fire resistance properties are considered to be equivalent to heat resistance. Thus, claim 5 is rejected. Additionally, p-aramid fibers are know to also have cut resistance. Thus, it would have been obvious to include fibers such as p-aramid fibers to improve the fire resistance and cut resistance of the fabric. Thuc, claim 6 and 7 are rejected.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baer et al. and Horne as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kaing et al. (2019/0211482).
The features of Baer et al. and Horne have been set forth above. While Baer et al. teaches a woven tubular sleeve fabric to protect wires, Baer 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 Baer et al. with a continuous wall to provide protection and remain fixed in place (paragraph 6). Therefore, claim 10 is rejected.
Conclusion
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
March 19, 2026
/JENNA L JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789