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 of Group II, Species (A) in the reply filed on 06-17-2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02-07-2025 AND 11-27-2024 are acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “groove”, “top and trough” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 31-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bryan (2012/0005854).
Regarding claim 31, Bryan discloses a laid rope (figs 1-8, member 101) for use in seaweed cultivation, the laid rope having a rope axis and rope axial length, the rope including a first yarn and a second yarn,
wherein the first yarn includes a first growth fiber and a first strength fiber, wherein the first growth fiber and the first strength fiber axially are aligned and twisted about each other to define a first left-handed twisting fiber-to-fiber engagement (first member 107),
wherein the second yarn includes a second growth fiber and a second strength fiber, wherein the second growth fiber and the second strength fiber are axially aligned and twisted about each other to define a second left-handed twisting fiber-to-fiber engagement (second member 107),
wherein the first yarn and the second yarn are axially aligned and twisted about each other to define a right handed twisting yarn-to-yarn engagement, wherein the first left-handed twisting fiber-to-fiber engagement disposes the first strength fiber and the first growth fiber to define a first contact line along the rope axial length where one fiber repeatedly contacts the other fiber, the first contact line further defining adjacent portions of the first strength fiber and the first growth fiber that are in an angular relationship to each other to define a first groove of the first yarn (fig 2),
wherein the second left-handed twisting fiber-to-fiber engagement disposes the second strength fiber and the second growth fiber to define a second contact line along the rope axial length where one fiber repeatedly contacts the other fiber, the second contact line further defining adjacent portions of the second strength fiber and the second growth fiber that are in an angular relationship to each other to define a second groove of the second yarn (fig 2).
Regarding claim 32, Bryan discloses the first growth fiber and the second growth being expanded polyethylene (para 0028 to 0029).
Regarding claim 33, Bryan discloses the first growth strength fiber and the second growth strength fiber are monofilament polypropylene (i.e. one strand, para 0029 to 0031).
Regarding claim 34, Bryan discloses a catchment enhancing fiber (fig 4, member 102) is included in first yarn, the second yarn, or both the first and second yarn.
Regarding claim 35, Bryan discloses the catchment enhancing fiber is spun polyester (para 0031, the polyester must be extruded (i.e. spun) from a spinneret machine).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryan (2012/0005854) as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of (Ryan (5,901,632).
Regarding claim 36, Bryan teaches all limitations except a loose twist that moves between the loose and taught states to define a second configuration of the groove.
Ryan teaches a rope having a loose twist. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the rope of Bryan by using the loose twist of Ryan in order to avoid a loss of translational efficiency.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryan (2012/0005854) as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Takenaka (2023/0392303).
Regarding claim 37, Bryan teaches all limitations except the distance from the top to the trough of the groove is 0.5-1mm or more.
Takenaka teaches a rope having a twist groove depth is 0.5-1mm or more (figs 7-10, member 9, para 0026). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the rope of Bryan by using the groove dimension of Takenaka to provide excellent bendability.
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryan (2012/0005854) as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Luinge et al. (2023/0311366).
Regarding claim 41, Bryan teaches all limitations except the surface of the first growth fiber, the second growth fiber, or both has a surface roughness having an average Ra value inclusively ranging from 2.5 pm to 20 pm.
Luinge teaches fiber having a surface roughness having an average Ra value inclusively ranging from 2.5 pm to 20 pm (claim 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the fiber of Bryan by using the surface roughness of Luinge in order to create a greater mechanical bond between the fibers
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 42-43 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, is listed on the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-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, KHOA D. HUYNH can be reached at (571)272-4888. 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.
BAO-THIEU L. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732