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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35
U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any
correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of
rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be
the same under either status.
DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the claims filed September 11, 2025, in which claims 1-3, 5-6, and 16 were presented for examination, of which claim 1 was amended and claim 16 was added as new, are being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants 1st Argument: To overcome the rejection to a product-by-process claim, claim 1 has further amended to have the first wire claimed as a "dense material." Joubert discloses a "high-modulus material" rather than a dense material. In the instant invention, the applicant claims a dense material because it cannot be cut with a sharp blade. It must instead be cut with an altogether different tool, one that crushes the dense material to sever it. The specification states: "The knitted cord is of a material that requires a sharp blade to sever, while the dense cable requires a bolt cutter or similar tool that crushes the dense material to sever it. Together the cable and over-knitted cord make a strong composite cable that is difficult to cut." Joubert claims an aramid fiber, which is not considered a dense material. Joubert discloses "... a reinforcing core made from a high-modulus material being enclosed within at least one of the plurality of cords that are in contact with the tread." The "reinforcing core" is disclosed in the fourth paragraph of the summary as "an aramid fiber reinforcing core..."
Examiners Response: Although Joubert does not explicitly disclose a wire of dense material, in the revised 35 U.S.C 103 rejection below, it is discussed how De Ridder et al. “Ridder” (US PG Pub. 2013/0055765) teaches the amended limitation.
Applicants 2nd Argument: The applicant further argues that Joubert is not analogous prior art because the composite cable as disclosed would not function as an adhesion chain. The adhesion chain of Joubert would not be as useful a safety material which requires more than one tool to cut. A composite cable with a dense material at the core, such as stainless-steel wire, would break if used as an adhesion chain, because the dense material would fatigue under repeated flexing, as happens when, as in Joubert, an adhesion chain is mounted to a vehicle wheel while driving.
Examiners Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant opinion absent of any evidence. How the composite cable is used is absent in the claims being examined, and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize how the invention of Joubert is used is a matter of intended use. Furthermore, which limitations Joubert discloses is discussed in the rejections below.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joubert et al. “Joubert” in view of De Ridder et al. “Ridder” (US PG Pub. 2013/0055765).
Regarding claim 1, Joubert discloses a composite cable (combination of 12 and 7, Fig. 1-2) comprising: at least a first polyester wire (7, Col. 4, lines: 46-49, lines 50-54, and Col. 5, lines: 7-8, as shown in Fig. 2); and said first polyester wire over-knitted with at least a first cord (12, Col. 5, lines: 7-8, see annotated Fig. 2 below of location “A”), forming a seamless tubular warp-knitted fabric (examiner notes elements 7 and 12 are shown connected to each other without a seam since they are wrapped over each other, in at least Col. 5, lines: 7-8 and in annotated Fig. 2 below. The elements are also shown “tubular” in shape, in Fig. 2, and “tubular” when the invention is fully formed in Fig. 1. Furthermore, knitting of wires, 7, to form the fabric shown in Fig. 2, and to create the net in Fig. 1, is stated as being done with a “warp knitting machine” in Col. 4, lines: 39-45. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a fabric formed on a “warp knitting machine” results in a “warp-knitted fabric”); wherein said composite cable provides a strength of both the cord and wire (“provides a…wire” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function).
PNG
media_image1.png
413
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2-Examiner Annotated
Joubert does not disclose the first wire is a dense material.
However, Ridder teaches a warp knitted fabric in the field of endeavor of net-like structures (Par. 0015-0016), wherein Ridder teaches a first wire of a dense material (Par. 0023, lines: 1-7, examiner notes stainless steel yarns are a well-known type of dense material).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a dense material, such as stainless steel, as taught by Ridder as the material for the first wire of Joubert. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because a dense material, such as stainless steel, was a well-known material for wires as taught by Ridder, in order to enhance the structural integrity and to provide a uniform structure (Par. 0023, lines: 4-7).
They do not explicitly disclose cutting both the cord and wire to sever the composite cable.
However, the limitation “requires cutting both the cord and wire to sever the composite cable”, renders this claim a product-by-process claim. The determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. (Same cite as above)).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the prior-art device disclosed by Joubert in view of Ridder would have the same parameters used to create the applicant’s claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Joubert in view of Ridder disclose at least a second wire (7 of Joubert of location “B” in annotated Fig. 2 above) over-knitted with at least a second cord (12, Col. 5, lines: 7-8, see annotated Fig. 2 above of location “B”); and said second cord inter-knitted with said first cord at regular intervals (Col. 5, lines: 7-8, examiner notes as shown in annotated Fig. 2 above there are regular intervals of locations “A” and “B” that form the structure shown in Fig. 2, and the cords are “inter-knitted” with each other through wires, 7); wherein a net is formed (as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Joubert in view of Ridder disclose the dense material is a material selected from the group consisting of: stainless-steel filament (Par. 0023, lines: 1-7, examiner notes it is well known in the art that “filaments” make up of yarns, as explained in Page 181, in the Complete Textile Glossary by Celanese Acetate for the definition of “yarn”).
Claims 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joubert et al. “Joubert” (US Patent 7,931,060).
Regarding claim 3, Joubert discloses a composite cable (combination of 12 and 7, Fig. 1-2) comprising: at least a first wire combined with at least a second wire to form a cable (examiner notes the “cable” is formed of element 7 which comprises a plurality of strands, wherein each strand forms a wire, Col. 4, lines: 46-49); and said cable over-knitted with at least one cord (12, Fig. 2, Col. 5, lines: 7-8); wherein said composite cable provides a strength of the first wire, the second wire and the cord (“provides a…cord” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function).
Joubert does not explicitly disclose cutting both the cord and the first wire and the second wire to sever the composite cable.
However, the limitation “requires cutting both the cord and the first wire and the second wire to sever the composite cable”, renders this claim a product-by-process claim. The determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. (Same cite as above)).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the prior-art device disclosed by Joubert would have the same parameters used to create the applicant’s claimed invention.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joubert et al. “Joubert” in view of Robertson JR. et al. “Robertson” (US PG Pub. 2014/0202393).
Regarding claim 5, Joubert discloses said first wire (7) and said second wire (7) are comprised of polyester (Col. 4, lines: 50-54); and said at least one cord (12) is comprised of a fibrous material (Col. 4, lines: 64-65, examiner notes “aramid fibers” are well known in the art to be “fibrous materials”).
Joubert does not disclose the first wire and said second wire are comprised of metal.
However, Robertson teaches yet another of plurality of wires, wherein Robertson teaches a first and second wire comprised of metal (Par. 0009, examiner notes “stainless steel” is a type of metal).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use metal as taught by Robertson as the material for the first and second wire of Joubert. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because stainless steel was a well-known material for wires as taught by Robertson, in order for the wires to have corrosion resistant properties (Par. 0009).
Regarding claim 6, Joubert discloses said first wire (7) and said second wire (7) are comprised of polyester (Col. 4, lines: 50-54); and said at least one cord (12) is comprised of aramid fibers (Col. 4, lines: 64-65).
Joubert does not disclose the first wire and said second wire are comprised of stainless steel.
However, Robertson teaches yet another of plurality of wires, wherein Robertson teaches a first and second wire comprised of stainless steel (Par. 0009).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use stainless steel as taught by Robertson as the material for the first and second wire of Joubert. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because stainless steel was a well-known material for wires as taught by Robertson, in order for the wires to have corrosion resistant properties (Par. 0009).
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent (See PTO-892) to applicant's disclosure. Examiner notes cutting wires of a cable is not novel as disclosed by US Patent 7,200,973 in at least Col. 3, lines: 38-47.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAKOTA MARIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri., 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, ALISSA TOMPKINS can be reached on (571) 272-3425. 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.
/DAKOTA MARIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA J TOMPKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732