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 .
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.
Claims 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US 20180023222 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a knit sleeve for providing thermal protection about an elongate member, comprising: a circumferentially continuous, tubular knit inner wall (outer wall, 14’ of Zhang) of multifilament mineral fiber yarns extending lengthwise between opposite open ends (Zhang, Par. 0004, 0028-0031, and Fig. 2A). Zhang teaches the knit sleeve comprises a knit outer wall (inner wall, 14” of Zhang) with opposite edges extending lengthwise between the opposite open ends, with one of the opposite edges of the knit outer wall being integrally knit to the inner wall, with the other of the opposite edges of the outer wall being wrappable about an outer surface of the inner wall into fixed relation about the outer surface of the inner wall (Zhang, Par. 0004, 0028-0031, and Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang teaches the yarn forming the multifilament mineral fiber yarn forming said circumferentially continuous tubular knit inner wall is selected from the group consisting of silica, fiberglass, ceramic, basalt, slate, slag, aramid, and carbon (Zhang, Par. 0030).
Regarding claims 6-7, Zhang teaches an impact resistant layer stitched to said outer wall, wherein the impact resistant layer forms a circumferentially continuous layer about said inner wall upon wrapping said outer wall about said inner wall (Zhang, Par. 0006-0007, 0014-0015, 0028, 0031, and Fig. 2A).
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Malloy et al. (US 20120082807 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Malloy teaches a knit sleeve for providing thermal protection about an elongate member, comprising: a circumferentially continuous, tubular knit inner wall (wall, 14/314) of multifilament mineral fiber yarns extending lengthwise between opposite open ends (Malloy, Par. 0034, 0037-0038, 0044, and Fig. 6). Malloy teaches the knit sleeve comprises a knit outer wall (extension, 28/328) with opposite edges extending lengthwise between the opposite open ends, with one of the opposite edges of the knit outer wall being integrally knit to the inner wall, with the other of the opposite edges of the outer wall being wrappable about an outer surface of the inner wall into fixed relation about the outer surface of the inner wall (Malloy, Par. 0010, 0034-0038, 0044, and Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 2, Malloy teaches the yarn forming said knit outer wall is durable and abrasion resistant and thus has greater impact resistance relative to yarn forming said inner wall (Malloy, Par. 0038).
Regarding claim 5, Malloy teaches the multifilament mineral fibers are silica, fiberglass, ceramic, basalt, aramid, or carbon (Malloy, Par. 0037).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malloy et al. as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Zhang et al.
Regarding claim 3, Malloy teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 1. Malloy further teaches the yarn forming the knit outer wall is durable and abrasion resistant (Malloy, Par. 0038).
Malloy is silent regarding the yarn forming said knit outer wall being selected from the group consisting of polyester, polyamide, polypropylene, polyethylene, acrylic, cotton, and rayon.
Zhang teaches a knit sleeve comprising durable, abrasion resistant (See impact resistant) yarn that is polyester, polyamide, polypropylene, polyethylene, acrylic, cotton, or rayon (Zhang, Abstract, Par. 0028-0031).
Malloy and Zhang are analogous art as they both teach knit sleeves comprising a durable, abrasion resistant yarn. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the impact resistant yarn of Zhang as the yarn of the knit outer wall of Malloy. This would allow for impact and abrasion resistance (Zhang, Par. 0031).
Claim 6-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Itoh et al. (US 20190308385 A1).
To note, the rejections to claims 6-7 are given as an alternative to the rejections to claims 6-7 in view of Zhang above.
Regarding claims 6-7 and 9, Zhang teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 1. Zhang is silent regarding an impact resistant layer covering said outer wall as required by claim 6, wherein the impact resistant layer forms a circumferentially continuous layer about said inner wall upon wrapping said outer wall about said inner wall as required by claim 7, and wherein the impact resistant layer is stitched to the outer wall as required by claim 9.
Itoh teaches a sleeve for protecting an elongate member comprising a first layer that wraps around the elongated member (textile layer) and an impact resistant layer (non-woven layer) that is stitched (see needle punching) to and covers the first layer, wherein the impact resistant layer forms a circumferentially continuous layer when wrapped around the elongated member (Itoh, Abstract, Par. 0004-0010, 0015, 0034, and Fig. 1).
Zhang and Itoh are analogous art as they both teach sleeves for protecting an elongate member comprising a layer that wraps around the elongated member. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the impact resistant layer of Itoh on the outer layer of Zhang. This would allow for improved abrasion resistance (Itoh, Par. 0034). This would further result in the impact resistant layer that is stitched to and covers the outer wall of Zhang such that the impact resistant layer forms a circumferentially continuous layer about said inner wall upon wrapping said outer wall about said inner wall.
Claim 6-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malloy et al. as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Itoh et al.
Regarding claims 6-7 and 9, Malloy teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 1. Malloy is silent regarding an impact resistant layer covering said outer wall as required by claim 6, wherein the impact resistant layer forms a circumferentially continuous layer about said inner wall upon wrapping said outer wall about said inner wall as required by claim 7, and wherein the impact resistant layer is stitched to the outer wall as required by claim 9.
Itoh teaches a sleeve for protecting an elongate member comprising a first layer that wraps around the elongated member (textile layer) and an impact resistant layer (non-woven layer) that is stitched (see needle punching) to and covers the first layer, wherein the impact resistant layer forms a circumferentially continuous layer when wrapped around the elongated member (Itoh, Abstract, Par. 0004-0010, 0015, 0034, and Fig. 1).
Malloy and Itoh are analogous art as they both teach sleeves for protecting an elongate member comprising a layer that wraps around the elongated member. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the impact resistant layer of Itoh on the outer layer of Malloy. This would allow for improved abrasion resistance (Itoh, Par. 0034). This would further result in the impact resistant layer that is stitched to and covers the outer wall of Malloy such that the impact resistant layer forms a circumferentially continuous layer about said inner wall upon wrapping said outer wall about said inner wall.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. as applied to claims 1 and 6-7 above, further in view of Rodrigues et al. (US 20110123759 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claims 1 and 6-7. Zhang is silent regarding a plurality of fasteners fixed to said impact resistant layer, wherein pairs of said plurality of fasteners are fixable to one another to maintain said outer wall in wrapped relation about said inner wall.
Rodrigues teaches a sleeve that can wrap around a tubular object (Rodrigues, Abstract, Par. 0007, and Fig. 1). Rodrigues further teaches a plurality of fasteners (Hook and loop) fixed to the wrappable portion of the sleeve such that pairs of the fasteners are fixable to one another (Rodrigues, Par. 0025-0026 and Figs. 4-5).
Zhang and Rodrigues are analogous art as they both teach sleeves comprising a wrapping section. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the fasteners of Rodrigues on the impact resistant layer of Zhang. This would allow for the outer all to attach to the inner wall when wrapped around said inner wall (Rodrigues, Par. 0025-0026 and Figs. 4-5).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. in view of Itoh et al. as applied to claims 1 and 6-7 above, further in view of Rodrigues et al.
To note, the following rejection to claim 8 is given as an alternative to the rejection to claim 8 in view of Zhang and Rodrigues above.
Regarding claim 8, Zhang teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claims 1 and 6-7. Zhang is silent regarding a plurality of fasteners fixed to said impact resistant layer, wherein pairs of said plurality of fasteners are fixable to one another to maintain said outer wall in wrapped relation about said inner wall.
Rodrigues teaches a sleeve that can wrap around a tubular object (Rodrigues, Abstract, Par. 0007, and Fig. 1). Rodrigues further teaches a plurality of fasteners (Hook and loop) fixed to the wrappable portion of the sleeve such that pairs of the fasteners are fixable to one another (Rodrigues, Par. 0025-0026 and Figs. 4-5).
Zhang and Rodrigues are analogous art as they both teach sleeves comprising a wrapping section. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the fasteners of Rodrigues on the impact resistant layer of Zhang. This would allow for the outer all to attach to the inner wall when wrapped around said inner wall (Rodrigues, Par. 0025-0026 and Figs. 4-5).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malloy et al. in view of Itoh et al. as applied to claims 1 and 6-7 above, further in view of Rodrigues et al.
Regarding claim 8, Malloy teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claims 1 and 6-7. Malloy is silent regarding a plurality of fasteners fixed to said impact resistant layer, wherein pairs of said plurality of fasteners are fixable to one another to maintain said outer wall in wrapped relation about said inner wall.
Rodrigues teaches a sleeve that can wrap around a tubular object (Rodrigues, Abstract, Par. 0007, and Fig. 1). Rodrigues further teaches a plurality of fasteners (Hook and loop) fixed to the wrappable portion of the sleeve such that pairs of the fasteners are fixable to one another (Rodrigues, Par. 0025-0026 and Figs. 4-5).
Malloy and Rodrigues are analogous art as they both teach sleeves comprising a wrapping section. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the fasteners of Rodrigues on the impact resistant layer of Malloy. This would allow for the outer all to attach to the inner wall when wrapped around said inner wall (Rodrigues, Par. 0025-0026 and Figs. 4-5).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Malloy et al. (EP 2185848 B1; hereinafter referred to as Malloy (2)).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 1. Zhang is silent regarding the inner wall being knit with 2X2 rib knit stitches.
Malloy (2) teaches a thermally resistant sleeve comprising an inner wall formed of yarns that is knit with 2X2 rib knit stitches for increased heat retention capacity (Malloy (2), Abstract, Par. 0001, 0002, 0014, and 0017).
Zhang and Malloy (2) are analogous art as they both teach thermally resistant sleeves comprising an inner wall that is knit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a 2X2 rib knit stitching for the inner wall of Zhang. This would allow for increased heat retention capacity (Malloy (2), Par. 0017).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malloy et al. as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Malloy (2) et al.
Regarding claim 10, Malloy teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 1. Malloy is silent regarding the inner wall being knit with 2X2 rib knit stitches.
Malloy (2) teaches a thermally resistant sleeve comprising an inner wall formed of yarns that is knit with 2X2 rib knit stitches for increased heat retention capacity (Malloy (2), Abstract, Par. 0001, 0002, 0014, and 0017).
Malloy and Malloy (2) are analogous art as they both teach thermally resistant sleeves comprising an inner wall that is knit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a 2X2 rib knit stitching for the inner wall of Malloy. This would allow for increased heat retention capacity (Malloy (2), Par. 0017).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed 15 May 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejections under 35 USC § 112 set forth in the previous office action.
The rejections under 35 USC § 112 set forth in the previous office action have been withdrawn due to the present claim amendments.
Applicant argues that Zhang does not teach a continuous inner wall comprising multifilament mineral fibers. This is not found persuasive for the following reasons:
Zhang teaches that both the wrappable wall and the continuous wall may comprise multifilament, mineral fibers (Zhang, Par. 0030-0031). Therefore, Zhang teaches a continuous inner wall comprising multifilament mineral fibers as described in the grounds of rejection above.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As stated above Zhang teaches that both the wrappable wall and the continuous wall may comprise multifilament mineral fibers. Therefore, no knowledge gleaned only from Applicant’s disclosure is utilized in the rejection as stated above.
For the reasons stated above, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
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 THOMAS J KESSLER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3075. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Th.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/THOMAS J KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights