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 § 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "non-textile, flexible wall " in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claim 1 does not disclose a non-textile, flexible wall. For purposes of compact prosecution, claim 8 is read to depend on claim 7, and the “non-textile, flexible wall” will be read to refer to the non-textile, flexible wall of claim 7. Claims 9 and 10 which depend on claim 8 will also additionally depend on claim 7 as a result.
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.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sellis (US 8263866 B2), hereafter known as Sellis, in view of Atwell (US 4452279 A), or alternatively over Sellis in view of Borkowitz (DE 202008008547 U1), hereafter known as Borkowitz.
Regarding claim 1, Sellis discloses a thermal, flame protective sleeve for protecting a member therein (abstract, the sleeve of Sellis is protective of member inside, col 3, lines 18-25, sleeve of Sellis is thermally protective, but dies not disclose flame protection), comprising:
a tubular member including a circumferentially continuous wall with an inner surface bounding an inner cavity extending along a central longitudinal axis between opposite ends (fig 12, col 6 lines 46-60, sensor sleeve 96, Sellis);
and at least one end cap attached to at least one of the opposite ends (fig 12, col 6 lines 46-60, band 92, which functions as the end cap, is attached to one end, Sellis) ,
wherein the end cap has at least one resilient tine extending radially inwardly from an outer surface of the end cap for engagement with an elongate member extending into the inner cavity of the tubular member (fig 12, col 6 lines 46-60, end cap 92 has fingers 94 that extend inwardly from outer surface of 92 and engage with the unlabeled wire sheath extending into tubular member 96, Sellis)
wherein the end cap is silicone (not disclosed).
Sellis does not disclose flame protection nor the end cap comprising silicone. However, Atwell teaches using a silicone and fiberglass sleeve for fire resistance for tubular articles (abstract, col 2, lines 25-32, Atwell). Atwell describes a fire resistant sleeve for components in vehicles, a field closely related to Sellis and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to incorporate the teachings of Atwell into Sellis and make the outer layer of the sleeve of Sellis, including the end cap since it is one piece, out of the silicone fiberglass material of Atwell. The sleeve material of Atwell meets the FAA 15 minute fire resistance test (abstract, Atwell), which would allow the sleeve of Sellis in view of Atwell to be used in situations where flame resistance is required.
Alternatively, Borkowitz teaches using flame-retardant silicone as a wrapped sleeve for cables and hoses (abstract, Borkowitz, page 6, last paragraph, page 7 first paragraph). Borkowitz describes a flame resistant sleeve for components in vehicles, a field closely related to Sellis and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to incorporate the teachings of Borkowitz into Sellis and make the outer layer of the sleeve of Sellis, including the end cap since it is one piece, out of the silicone material of Borkowitz. The silicone of Borkowitz provides UV resistance and is able to handle low and high temperatures, allowing it to be used in other vehicles such as motorcycles (page 6, last paragraph, page 7 first paragraph, Borkowitz).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sellis in view of Atwell, or alternatively Sellis in view of Borkowitz, in further view of Thompson (US 3912855 A), hereafter known as Thompson.
Regarding claim 2, Sellis in view of Atwell (or alternatively Sellis in view of Borkowitz) discloses the thermal, flame protective sleeve of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the at least one end cap includes a pair of end caps, with a separate one of the pair of end caps attached to a separate one of the opposite ends.
However, Thompson teaches a pair of end caps (fig 1, end caps 13 and 14, Thompson), with one end cap on each end of the sleeve (fig 1, each cap is one each end of sleeve 20, Thompson). Thompson describes a protective sleeve for electrical cables, a field closely related to Sellis, Atwell, Borkowitz, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to incorporate the teachings of Thompson into Sellis in view of Atwell (or alternatively into Sellis in view of Borkowitz) and add a second end cap to the other end of the protective sleeve 20. The second end cap closes off the other end of the sleeve and allows the sleeve to be used to protect a sensor or other device that is mounted to the middle of an elongated object, adding more versatility to the sleeve of Sellis in view of Atwell and Thompson (or alternatively Sellis in view of Borkowitz and Thompson).
Regarding claim 3, Sellis in view of Atwell and Thompson (or alternatively Sellis in view of Borkowitz and Thompson) discloses the thermal, flame protective sleeve of claim 2, wherein the circumferentially continuous wall has an outer surface (fig 12, sleeve 96 has an outer surface, Sellis), and further including an outermost coating of silicone bonded to the entirety of the outer surface (in the case of Sellis in view of Atwell and Thompson, the flame resistant silicone material of Atwell replaces the outer layer of Sellis, and thus is bonded to the outer surface. In the case of Sellis in view of Borkowitz and Thompson, the flame resistant silicone material of Borkowitz replaces the outer layer of Sellis, and thus is bonded to the outer surface.)
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sellis in view of Atwell in further view of Thompson.
Regarding claim 4, Sellis in view of Atwell and Thompson discloses the thermal, flame protective sleeve of claim 2, wherein the circumferentially continuous wall is a textile wall (fig 3, col 4 lines 58-61, Atwell, the fiberglass which forms the wall is woven into a textile)
Regarding claim 5, Sellis in view of Atwell and Thompson discloses the thermal, flame protective sleeve of claim 4, wherein the textile wall is woven, knit or braided (fig 3, col 4 lines 58-61, Atwell, the fiberglass which forms the wall is woven into a textile).
Claims 6,7,8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sellis in view of Borkowitz in further view of Thompson.
Regarding claim 6, Sellis in view of Borkowitz and Thompson discloses the thermal, flame protective sleeve of claim 2, wherein the circumferentially continuous wall is a non-textile, flexible wall (fig 12, Sellis, wall 96 is continuous, and the outer layer has been replaced with the silicone of Borkowitz, which is non textile and flexible)
Regarding claim 7, Sellis in view of Borkowitz and Thompson discloses the thermal, flame protective sleeve of claim 6, wherein the non-textile, flexible wall is formed of a flexible resinous material (page 6, last paragraph, page 7 first paragraph, Borkowitz, the silicone material, which the outer layer of Sellis is modified to be made of, is flexible and resinous).
Regarding claim 8, Sellis in view of Borkowitz and Thompson discloses the thermal, flame protective sleeve of claim 7, wherein the non-textile, flexible wall is formed of silicone (page 6, last paragraph, page 7 first paragraph, Borkowitz, the wall material is silicone)
Claims 9 and 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sellis in view of Borkowitz and Thompson.
Regarding claim 9, Sellis in view of Borkowitz and Thompson discloses the thermal, flame protective sleeve of claim 8, wherein the non-textile, flexible wall is formed as a single, monolithic molded piece of material with the at least one end cap (fig 12, col 6 lines 46-60, the end cap (band 92 and fingers 94) and sleeve 96 are formed as one piece of material, and is thus monolithic, Sellis, but molding is not disclosed.)
Regarding the limitation of the wall being molded, as stated in MPEP 2113-I: "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). While the structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product, in this case it does not appear that the use of a molding process to form the flexible wall would be expected to impart any distinctive structural characteristics to the final product as claimed. Thus, claim 9 is unpatentable over the sleeve of Sellis in view of Borkowitz and Thompson, even if made by a different process.
Alternatively, to promote compact prosecution in the event that the molding process is seen to impart some distinctive structural characteristic to the final product, Thompson further teaches molding end caps (col 3, lines 29-31, Thompson). Thompson describes a protective sleeve for electrical cables, a field closely related to Sellis, Borkowitz, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to incorporate the teachings of Thompson into Sellis in view of Borkowitz and Thompson and mold the end caps of Sellis in view of Borkowitz and Thompson. Silicone molding is very well known in the art, and yields fast and consistent parts, which would benefit the device of Sellis in view of Borkowitz, Thompson. Since the sleeve and end caps are formed as one piece, the sleeve would be molded as well. Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to mold the end cap and sleeve, since applicant has not disclosed that the molding solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well if manufactured in a different manner.
Regarding claim 10. Sellis in view of Borkowitz and Thompson discloses the thermal, flame protective sleeve of claim 9, wherein the at least one end cap includes a pair of end caps, with a separate one of the pair of end caps at a separate one of the opposite ends (fig 1 Thompson, sleeve 20 has an end cap on each end, 13 and 14 respectively. The same is true of Sellis in view of Borkowitz and Thompson.)
Claims 11,14,15,16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sellis in view of Thompson in further view of Atwell, or alternatively Sellis in view of Thompson in further view of Borkowitz.
Regarding claim 11, Sellis discloses a method of constructing (not disclosed) a sleeve for protecting a member contained in an inner cavity of the sleeve, comprising:
forming a tubular member having a circumferentially continuous wall with an inner surface bounding the inner cavity extending along a central longitudinal axis between opposite ends (fig 12, col 6 lines 46-60, sensor sleeve 96, which is for protecting a member contained in its inner cavity, and has a circumferentially continuous wall with inner surface bounding the inner cavity which extends along an axis between opposite ends, Sellis, although method of forming is not disclosed);
and attaching at least one end cap constructed of silicone to at least one of the opposite ends (fig 12, col 6 lines 46-60, Sellis, band 92, which functions as the end cap, is attached to one end during the forming process, since they are formed as one piece of material. The material can be polymer (col 4, lines 6-9), although silicone is not disclosed).
Sellis does not disclose how the member and end cap are constructed. However, Thompson teaches molding end caps (col 3, lines 29-31, Thompson), which is a method of constructing. Thompson describes a protective sleeve for electrical cables, a field closely related to Sellis, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to incorporate the teachings of Thompson into Sellis and mold the end caps of Sellis. Polymer molding is very well known in the art, and yields fast and consistent parts, which would benefit the device of Sellis. Since the sleeve and end caps are formed as one piece, the sleeve would be molded as well.
Sellis in view of Thompson does not disclose the end cap material to be silicone. However, Atwell teaches using a silicone and fiberglass sleeve for fire resistance for tubular articles (abstract, col 2, lines 25-32, Atwell). Atwell describes a fire resistant sleeve for components in vehicles, a field closely related to Sellis, Thompson, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to incorporate the teachings of Atwell into Sellis in view of Thompson and make the outer layer of the sleeve of Sellis in view of Thompson, including the end cap since it is one piece, out of the silicone fiberglass material of Atwell. The sleeve material of Atwell meets the FAA 15 minute fire resistance test (abstract, Atwell), which would allow the sleeve of Sellis in view of Thomson and Atwell to be used in situations where flame resistance is required.
Alternatively, Borkowitz teaches using flame-retardant silicone as a wrapped sleeve for cables and hoses (abstract, Borkowitz, page 6, last paragraph, page 7 first paragraph). Borkowitz describes a flame resistant sleeve for components in vehicles, a field closely related to Sellis, Thompson, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to incorporate the teachings of Borkowitz into Sellis in view of Thompson and make the outer layer of the sleeve of Sellis in view of Thompson, including the end cap since it is one piece, out of the silicone material of Borkowitz. The silicone of Borkowitz provides UV resistance and is able to handle low and high temperatures, allowing it to be used in other vehicles such as motorcycles (page 6, last paragraph, page 7 first paragraph, Borkowitz).
Regarding claim 14, Sellis in view of Thompson and Atwell (or alternatively Sellis in view of Thompson and Borkowitz) discloses the method of claim 11, further including molding the at least one end cap in bonded attachment to the circumferentially continuous wall (in both cases, col 3, lines 29-31, Thompson discloses molding the end caps. Since the sleeve and end cap of Sellis are made from one piece of material, they are molded to be attached together).
Regarding claim 15, Sellis in view of Thompson and Atwell (or alternatively Sellis in view of Thompson and Borkowitz) discloses the method of claim 14, further including molding the at least one end cap and the circumferentially continuous wall as a monolithic piece of material. (in both cases, fig 12, col 6 lines 46-60, the end cap (band 92 and fingers 94) and sleeve 96 are formed as one piece of material, Sellis, and is thus monolithic).
Regarding claim 16. Sellis in view of Thompson and Atwell (or alternatively Sellis in view of Thompson and Borkowitz) discloses the method of claim 15, further including molding the at least one end cap including a pair of end caps, with a separate end cap molded to each of the opposite ends (in both cases, fig 12, col 6 lines 46-60, the end cap (band 92 and fingers 94) and sleeve 96 are formed as one piece of material, Sellis. When modified with Thompson to include end caps on both ends, the end caps are also molded to the sleeve as one piece of material.)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sellis in view of Thompson and Atwell, in further view of Thompson, or alternatively Sellis in view of Thompson and Borkowitz in further view of Thompson.
Regarding claim 12, Sellis in view of Thompson and Atwell (or alternatively Sellis in view of Thompson and Borkowitz) discloses the method of claim 11, but does not disclose further including attaching a separate silicone end cap to each of the opposite ends.
However, Thompson teaches a pair of end caps (fig 1, end caps 13 and 14, Thompson), with one end cap on each end of the sleeve (fig 1, each cap is one each end of sleeve 20, Thompson). Thompson describes a protective sleeve for electrical cables, a field closely related to Sellis, Atwell, Borkowitz, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to incorporate the teachings of Thompson into Sellis in view of Thompson and Atwell (or alternatively into Sellis in view of Thompson and Borkowitz) and add a second end cap to the other end of the protective sleeve 20. The second end cap closes off the other end of the sleeve and allows the sleeve to be used to protect a sensor or other device that is mounted to the middle of an elongated object, adding more versatility to the protective sleeve.
Claims 13,17,18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sellis in view of Thompson and Atwell, in further view of Thompson.
Regarding claim 13, Sellis in view of Thompson, Atwell, and Thompson discloses the method of claim 12, further bonding a silicone coating to an outer surface of the circumferentially continuous wall (fig 12, sleeve 96 has an outer surface, Sellis. In the case of Sellis in view of Thompson, Atwell, and Thompson, the flame resistant silicone material of Atwell replaces the outer layer of Sellis and is bonded via molding (abstract, col 2 lines 30-32, Atwell).
Regarding claim 17, Sellis in view of Thompson, Atwell, and Thompson discloses the method of claim 12, further including forming the circumferentially continuous wall as a textile wall (fig 3, col 4 lines 58-61, Atwell, the fiberglass which forms the wall is woven into a textile).
Regarding claim 18, Sellis in view of Thompson, Atwell, and Thompson discloses the method of claim 17, further including forming the textile wall from monofilaments and/or multifilaments woven, braided or knit with one another (fig 3, col 4 lines 58-61, Atwell, the yarns which forms the wall are woven into a textile. Col 2, lines 25-30, the yarns are made of a plurality of continuous fiberglass filaments, Atwell).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sellis in view of Thompson and Borkowitz, in further view of Thompson.
Regarding claim 19, Sellis in view of Thompson, Borkowitz, and Thompson discloses the method of claim 12, further including forming the circumferentially continuous wall as a non-textile wall (fig 12, Sellis, wall 96 is continuous, and the outer layer has been replaced with the silicone of Borkowitz, which is non textile. Col 3, lines 29-31, Thompson, the wall is formed via molding.)
Regarding claim 20, Sellis in view of Thompson, Borkowitz, and Thompson discloses the method of claim 19, further including forming the circumferentially continuous wall of silicone (page 6, last paragraph, page 7 first paragraph, Borkowitz, the wall material is silicone).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fentress (US 4426413 A) and Scarborough (US 4029895 A) disclose sleeves for enclosing cables with end caps on both ends.
Teal (US 20170012417 A1), Depompeo (US 11345112 B2), and Galamba (US 10840681 B2 and US 20170033542 A1) disclose thermal protective sleeves with extended fingers.
Lester (US 10554027 B2) discloses a thermal protective sleeve with flaps that can be a variety of shapes.
Aifeier ET’s Amazon product page “Firewall Rubber Grommets 2-1/8" ID 2-1/2" Drill Hole Double-Sided Hole Plugs for Wire Protection - 4 PCS” discloses end caps with extended fingers to protect electrical cables.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAOTIAN LU whose telephone number is (571)272-0444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm CST.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881. 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.
/H.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753