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
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pentney et al. (4422478).
PNG
media_image1.png
261
711
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pentney et al. discloses a heat shrinkable wrap (2) comprising: a body comprising two longitudinal edges and two transverse edges; a first locking feature which expands along a first longitudinal edge of the two longitudinal edges and a second locking feature which expands along a second longitudinal edge of the two longitudinal edges; wherein the body comprises a heat shrink material; wherein the first locking feature at the first longitudinal edge comprises at least two first locking elements (5, 7) which expand along the first longitudinal edge and the second locking feature at the second longitudinal edge comprises at least two second locking elements (6, 8) which expand along the second longitudinal edge; wherein the first locking elements and the second locking elements are adapted for engaging with each other, for establishing, in an engaged state, at least two connections between the first locking feature and the second locking feature; wherein, when the connection between the first locking feature and the second locking feature is established, the body and the locking features form a tubular structure; wherein each of the at least two first locking elements are in the shape of a hook, wherein the hooks of the at least two first locking elements point in different directions (i.e., opposite directions, see the annotated Figure above) (re-claim 1).
Pentney et al. also discloses that the first and second locking features are adapted for establishing a formfitting connection between the first locking feature and the second locking feature, the formfitting connection between the first locking feature and the second locking feature comprising the at least two connections between the first locking elements and second locking elements in the engaged state (re-claim 2); the first and second locking features are adapted for establishing a force fitting connection (col. 5, lines 22-25 and lines 53-54) between the first locking feature and the second locking feature, the forcefitting connection between the first locking feature and the second locking feature comprising the at least two connections between the first locking elements and second locking elements in the engaged state (re-claim 3); the first and second locking features are provided at an inside surface of the body of the heat shrinkable wrap when the locking features are connected and the heat shrinkable wrap forms a tubular structure (Fig. 2) (re-claim 5); and the locking features are made of thermoplastic material (col. 3 lines 30-40) (re-claim 7).
Re-claim 10, it has been held that the patentability of a product claim is determined by the novelty and nonobviouness of the claimed product itself without consideration of the process for making it, gluing, welding, or co-extruding, which is recited in the claim. In re Thorpe, 111 F. 2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966; see also In re Nordt Development Co., LLC, [2017-1445] (February 8, 2018).
Re-claim 11, Pentney et al. discloses the heat shrinkable wrap comprising a flame-retardant material (col. 3, lines 46-50).
Claims 1, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Winterhoff (4714280).
PNG
media_image2.png
332
432
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Winterhoff discloses a heat shrinkable wrap (1) comprising: a body comprising two longitudinal edges and two transverse edges; a first locking feature which expands along a first longitudinal edge of the two longitudinal edges and a second locking feature which expands along a second longitudinal edge of the two longitudinal edges; wherein the body comprises a heat shrink material; wherein the first locking feature at the first longitudinal edge comprises at least two first locking elements which expand along the first longitudinal edge and the second locking feature at the second longitudinal edge comprises at least two second locking elements which expand along the second longitudinal edge; wherein the first locking elements and the second locking elements are adapted for engaging with each other, for establishing, in an engaged state, at least two connections between the first locking feature and the second locking feature; wherein, when the connection between the first locking feature and the second locking feature is established, the body and the locking features form a tubular structure; wherein each of the at least two first locking elements are in the shape of a hook, wherein the hooks of the at least two first locking elements point in different directions (i.e., opposite directions, see the annotated Figure above) (re-claim 1). Winterhoff also discloses that the first and second locking features are adapted for establishing a formfitting connection between the first locking feature and the second locking feature, the formfitting connection between the first locking feature and the second locking feature comprising the at least two connections between the first locking elements and second locking elements in the engaged state (re-claim 2); the first and second locking features are provided at an inside surface of the body of the heat shrinkable wrap when the locking features are connected and the heat shrinkable wrap forms a tubular structure (Fig. 7) (re-claim 5).
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.
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.
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda (10697577) in view of Pentney et al.
Fukuda discloses a wrap (10) comprising a body comprising two longitudinal edges and two transverse edges; a first locking feature (12) which expands along a first longitudinal edge of the two longitudinal edges and a second locking feature (11) which expands along a second longitudinal edge of the two longitudinal edges; wherein the first locking feature at the first longitudinal edge comprises at least two first locking elements (12d1 12d2) which expand along the first longitudinal edge and the second locking feature at the second longitudinal edge comprises at least two second locking elements (11c1 11c2) which expand along the second longitudinal edge; wherein the first locking elements and the second locking elements are adapted for engaging with each other, for establishing, in an engaged state, at least two connections between the first locking feature and the second locking feature; wherein, when the connection between the first locking feature and the second locking feature is established, the body and the locking features form a tubular structure; wherein each of the at least two first locking elements (12d1 12d2) are in the shape of a hook, wherein the hooks of the at least two first locking elements point in different directions (i.e., opposite directions, see the annotated Figure above) (re-claim 1). Fukuda also discloses that the first locking elements and the second locking elements comprise multiple teeth (12d1 12d2) and edges (11c1 11c2) formed in the first locking feature and the second locking feature to interlock with each other (re-claim 4).
Fukuda discloses the body of the wrap formed of a soft synthetic resin but not a heat shrink material (re-claim 1).
Pentney et al. discloses a heat shrinkable wrap comprising a body comprised of a heat shrink material.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use heat shrink material for the body of the wrap of Fukuda to meet the specific use of the resulting wrap since heat shrink material is known in the art for being used as wraps or covers as taught by Pentney et al.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pentney et al. in view of Trace et al. (2008/0314470).
Pentney et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for the thermoplastic material having a softening temperature of 140°C. Trace et al. discloses a tubular structure comprising a thermoplastic material which has a softening temperature of 140°C ([0026]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use a thermoplastic material having a softening temperature of 140°C as taught by Trace et al. for the thermoplastic material of Pentney et al. to meet the specific use of the resulting wrap.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Applicant argues that Pentney does not disclose a heat shrinkable wrap with a body comprised of a heat shrink material which has at least two first locking elements being in the shape of a hook, wherein the hooks point in different directions. Examiner would disagree because Pentney does teach a heat shrinkable wrap with a body (2) comprised of a heat shrink material (col. 5 line 10, heat-shrinkable cover 2), see the above annotated Figure showing the features of the two first locking elements pointing different (opposite) directions.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am to 5:30pm.
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, Imani N Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/CHAU N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841