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 with traverse of Group II (claims 11-15) in the reply filed on 10/10/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-10, 16-18 are withdrawn. Applicant does not provide any further remarks about the request of restriction.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based Terminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. A Terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about Terminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 11-15 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of US Application 18/290,513 (PGPub 20240254690).
Claim 11 in the instant application are identical with claims 1-3 in US Application 18/290,513.
Claim 12 in the instant application is identical with claim 4 in US Application 18/290,513.
Claim 13 in the instant application are identical with claims 5, 6 in US Application 18/290,513.
Claim 14 in the instant application is identical with claim 8 in US Application 18/290,513.
Claim 15 in the instant application is identical with claims 11, 15 in US Application 18/290,513.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both inventions using the same method for manufacturing rope.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyksterhouse (US 2019/0127539), hereinafter, Dyksterhouse’539 in view of Batdorf et al. (US 5,511,965), as evidenced by Data sheet (Guide) of O-ring from R.L. Hudson & Company.
Regarding claim 11, Dyksterhouse’539 discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, a method for manufacturing rope (ABSTRACT), comprising:
receiving a plurality of thermoplastic polymer or resin impregnated rovings (item 105 (from reel(s) 104) in Fig. 1 ([0037], lines 6-8));
combining the plurality of thermoplastic polymer or resin impregnated rovings into a combined roving (e.g., in an impregnation die 120 in Fig. 1 ([0037], lines 4-6));
tensioning the combined roving (item 109 in Fig. 1 ([0037], line 12));
heating the combined roving (e.g., in [0041], [0043]);
removing excess thermoplastic polymer or resin from a surface of the combined roving ([0042]);
chilling the combined roving while under tension ([0042]); and
wherein the removing excess thermoplastic polymer or resin from a surface of the combined roving is executed using an impregnation die (e.g., item 140 in Fig. 1 ([0044], line 4-6)).
However, Dyksterhouse’539 does not arrange a housing having/contacting an insert coupled with a locking mechanism to provide a sizing and shaping to the combined roving.
In the same field of endeavor, extrude having a variable outer diameter, Batdorf discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 2, 3, the extrudable material is normally forced through the aperture in the die 21 around the mandril 24. In Fig. 2, an “O” ring (26) with a second aperture therein 27 is placed behind the die and pressed against the die by means of a backing plate 23. Pressure against the backing plate in the direction of the die, that is, in the direction of extrusion, compresses the “O” ring to force the second aperture 27 closed. As the backing plate is moved away from the die, the “O” ring assumes its normal rest configuration and the aperture 27 opens (col. 2, lines 41-50).
Here, the die 21 is considered at least to provide one portion of the housing for the “O” ring 26 and the backing plate 23. The “O” ring 26 is considered as the insert to support the extrude. The backing plate 23 is considered to provide the mechanical support or the locking mechanism to the “O” ring for adjusting the opening and closing of the “O” ring. The opening and closing of the “O” ring are considered to provide the function of sizing and shaping of the extrude (col. 2, lines 50-54).
Thus, Batdorf discloses a housing, an insert having an inlet through the housing, and a first passage through the insert, the insert formed of an elastomer material (see the data sheet of O-ring in attached file from R.L. Hudson & Company) and sized and shaped to abut inner walls of the housing; and a mechanical locking mechanism configured to communicate physical pressure to the insert.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dyksterhouse’539 to incorporate the teachings of Batdorf to provide a housing having/contacting an insert coupled with a locking mechanism to provide a sizing and shaping to the combined roving. Doing so would be possible to have the extrude with a variable outer diameter, as recognized by Batdorf (col. 1, lines 44-52).
Regarding claim 12, Dyksterhouse’539 does not arrange a housing having/contacting an insert coupled with a locking mechanism to provide a sizing and shaping to the combined roving. Batdorf discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 2, 3, for example, the hole of the backing plate and the hole of the “O” ring (or the flexible sleeve 31 (as shown in Fig. 3)) have to be in alignment to function properly (i.e., when adjusting the position(s) of the backing plate 23, e.g., the aperture 32 in the backing plate 23 (e.g., as shown in Fig. 3) has to be in alignment with the inner hole of the flexible sleeve 31).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dyksterhouse’539 to incorporate the teachings of Batdorf to provide that the hole of the backing plate and the hole of the “O” ring have to be in alignment to function properly. Doing so would be possible to have the extrude with a variable outer diameter, as recognized by Batdorf (col. 1, lines 44-52).
Regarding claim 13, Dyksterhouse’539 does not arrange a housing having/contacting an insert coupled with a locking mechanism to provide a mechanical connection to the housing. Batdorf discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 3, the flexible sleeve is held against the die by means of a baking plate 23 (col. 2, lines 59-60). Here, the contact portion of the die is considered as one portion of the housing. At least, the mechanical connection is established among the housing, the insert, and the locking mechanism.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dyksterhouse’539 to incorporate the teachings of Batdorf to provide that a housing having/contacting an insert coupled with a locking mechanism to provide a mechanical connection to the housing. Doing so would be possible to have the extrude with a variable outer diameter, as recognized by Batdorf (col. 1, lines 44-52).
Regarding claims 14, 15, Dyksterhouse’539 does not arrange a housing having/contacting an insert to provide a sizing and shaping to the combined roving. Batdorf discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 2, 3, the “O” ring (i.e., the insert) is deformable for opening or closing. As disclosed/evidenced by R.L. Hudson & Company (the data sheet of O ring is attached), “O” ring can be made of silicone-based material (e.g., silicone in page 2), plastic based material (e.g., Tetrafluoroethylene (Teflon) in page 2).
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Dyksterhouse’539 to have method for manufacturing rope as R.L. Hudson & Company teaches that it is known to have “O” ring being made of silicone-based material or plastic based material. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIBIN LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached on 571 270 7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741