DETAILED ACTION
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on May 26, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently claims 1-11and 34-39 are amended, claim 29 is cancelled, claims 42-46, and claims 39-41 are withdrawn, resulting in claims 1-28, 30-38, and 42-46 pending for examination.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12, 16-27, 30-38, and 44-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smeets (WO 2011/154383)1,2 in view of Fujiwara (JP H02-61146)2,3. Supporting evidence provided by MatWeb (ExxonMobil EXACT 0230 Octene-1 Plastomer)
With respect to claims 1, 20-23, and 37-38, Smeets teaches a rope (lengthy body) containing high modulus polyethylene (HMPE) yarns containing HMPE fibers (yarns comprising higher performance polyethylene fibers), the rope being coated with a plastomer (polymeric resin) and the HMPE fibers being impregnated with a plastomer (polymeric resin) deposited between and around the fibers (polymeric resin dispersed throughout a cross-section of the yarns so as to impregnate the yarns and at least partially cover surfaces of the HPPE fibers with the polymeric resin) (page 1, lines 3-4 and 15-25). Smeets does not explicitly teach the yarns are multifilamentary, however Smeets does teach the polyethylene fibers having a denier per filament of from 0.1-50 and the polyethylene yarns have a denier from 200-50,000 (page 4, lines 22-25). Since the yarn denier is greater than the denier per filament, the ordinary artisan would recognize that the yarn is a multifilamentary yarn.
The plastomer (polymeric resin) may be a thermoplastic copolymer of ethylene or propylene (page 2, lines 8-11). The density of the plastomer (polymeric resin) is preferably between 880 and 920 kg/m3, more preferably between 880 and 910 kg/m3 (page 2, lines 18-19). The density is measured by ISO1183 (page 1, lines 19 and 25). The plastomer (polymeric resin) has a peak melting point of between 70oC and 120oC, preferably between 75oC and 100oC, more preferably between 80oC and 95oC (page 2, lines 20-22). In Example 1 the plastomer (polymeric resin) used is Exact 0230, which has a heat of fusion of 125 J/g (MatWeb; ExxonMobil EXACT 0230 Octene-1 Plastomer).
Smeets is silent as to the rope being used in a net, a round sling or a splice.
Fujiwara teaches a thin, lightweight netting body that has excellent mechanical strength and impact resistance (page 3). The net is made of a molecularly oriented molded article which is coated with a self-emulsifying polymer resin emulsion (page 4). The molecularly oriented molded article is ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (page 4). The ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene is braided into a rope, which is then braided into a net, which is then coated with an ultra-high molecular weight polyolefin resin emulsion (pages 17-18).
Since both Smeets and Fujiwara teach high performance polyethylene ropes coated with polyolefin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the rope of Smeets in a net in order to provide a lightweight netting body that has excellent mechanical strength and impact resistance.
With respect to claim 2, Smeets in view of Fujiwara teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Smeets further teaches the fibers of the HMPE yarns may be continuous or staple fibers (page 3, lines 20-23).
With respect to claim 3, Smeets in view of Fujiwara teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. The limitation “wherein the HPPE fibers are melt-spun fibers, gel-spun fibers or solid state powder fibers” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Smeets discloses the fibers may be manufactured by any technique known in the art, preferably by a melt or a gel spinning process (page 3, lines 24-17).
With respect to claims 4-7, Smeets in view of Fujiwara teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Smeets teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach the tensile strength of the HPME fibers. In Example 1 the HMPE yarn used is 1760 dTex Dyneema SK78 yarn (page 9, lines 4-8). Page 18, lines 22-23 of the instant specification identifies Dyneema 1760 SK78 as having a tenacity of 35.1 cN/dtex (3.51 N/tex).
With respect to claim 8, Smeets in view of Fujiwara teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Smeets further teaches preferred polyethylene fibers include ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) (page 3, lines 24-27).
With respect to claims 9-11, Smeets in view of Fujiwara teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 above. In Example 1 a braided core consisting of Dyneema (UHMWPE) was used (100% of the HPPE yarn/fibers is UHMWPE) (page 9, lines 4-8).
With respect to claim 12, Smeets in view of Fujiwara teaches all the limitations of claim 8 above. The intrinsic viscosity of the polyethylene yarn is at least 3 dl/g, more preferably at least 4 dl/g, most preferably at least 5 dl/g (page 4, lines 12-15).
With respect to claims 16-17, Smeets in view of Fujiwara teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Smeets further teaches the density of the plastomer (polymeric resin) is preferably between 880 and 920 kg/m3, more preferably between 880 and 910 kg/m3 (page 2, lines 18-19).
With respect to claims 18-19, Smeets in view of Fujiwara teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Smeets further teaches the plastomer (polymeric resin) has a peak melting point of between 70oC and 120oC, preferably between 75oC and 100oC, more preferably between 80oC and 95oC (page 2, lines 20-22).
With respect to claims 24-27, Smeets in view of Fujiwara teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Smeets further teaches that in a preferred embodiment the plastomer (polymeric resin) is a thermoplastic copolymer of ethylene or propylene and containing as co-monomers one or more α-olefins having 2-12 C-atoms, in particular ethylene, isobutene, 1-butene, 1-hexene, 4-methyl-1-pentene and 1-octene (page 2, lines 8-11).
With respect to claim 30, Smeets in view of Fujiwara teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Smeets further teaches the plastomer (polymeric resin) is a semi-crystalline copolymer of ethylene or propylene (page 1, line 31 – page 2, line 2).
With respect to claim 31, Smeets in view of Fujiwara teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. As evidenced by MatWeb, the plastomer used in Example 1 of Smeets, EXACT 0230, has a flexural modulus of 0.067 GPa (67 MPa) (MatWeb, ExxonMobile EXACT 0230 Octene-1 Plastomer; Smeets, page 9, lines 4-8).
With respect to claims 32-33, Smeets in view of Fujiwara teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Smeets further teaches the rope can have any known thickness depending on the ultimate use (page 7, lines 19-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the rope with a thickness and length suitable for its desired end use, including a rope that has a length dimension which is at least 20 times greater, preferably 30 times greater, than the greater of the width or thickness as claimed.
With respect to claims 34-36, Smeets in view of Fujiwara teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Smeets further teaches the plastomer (polymeric resin) coats substantially the whole surface of the core yarn and impregnates the core yarn by being deposited between and around the fibers of the rope (page 8, lines 12-24). Smeets does not explicitly teach the percent of coverage of the plastomer (polymeric resin), however as the yarn is both coated and impregnated with the plastomer (polymeric resin), it is reasonable to presume the plastomer (polymeric resin) covers at least 90% of the surfaces of the HMPE fibers.
With respect to claims 44-46, Smeets in view of Fujiwara teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Smeets is silent as to the plastomer (polymeric resin) comprising a functionalized polymer, specifically a functionalized polyethylene, polypropylene, or copolymers thereof, more specifically a copolymer of ethylene and/or propylene with an ethylenically unsaturated monomer comprising a carboxylic acid group or derivative thereof.
Fujiwara further teaches self-emulsifying polymer resin includes copolymers of olefin and unsaturated carboxylic acid or salts thereof (page 18). The use of unsaturated carboxylic acid salts in the olefin copolymer improves the weather resistance of the coated mesh (page 19).
Since both Smeets and Fujiwara teach high performance polyethylene ropes coated with polyolefin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plastomer (polymeric resin) of Smeets to include polyolefin copolymerized with an unsaturated carboxylic acid salt in order to improve the weather resistance of the rope.
Claim(s) 13-15 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smeets (WO 2011/154383)4,5 in view of Fujiwara (JP H02-61146)1,2,6 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harpell (EP 0091547)1,2.
With respect to claims 13-15, Smeets in view of Fujiwara teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Smeets in view of Fujiwara is silent as to the plastomer (polymeric resin) being present in an amount of between 1 and 25 wt.%, preferably between 2 and 20 wt.%, most preferably between 4 and 18 wt.% of the lengthy body.
Harpell teaches a coated polyolefin fiber comprising a monofilament or multifilament fiber of polyethylene or polypropylene and a coating on the monofilament and on at least a portion of the filaments of the multifilament containing a polymer having ethylene or propylene crystallinity (page 2, lines 25-38). The fiber includes ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene (page 3, lines 7-11). The proportions of coating compared to fiber may vary over a wide range depending upon the application for which the coated fibers are to be used (page 7, lines 9-16). For coated fibers to be used in purely fiber applications, as in rope, a preferred coating amount is between about 10 and about 50%, by weight of the fiber (page 7, lines 9-16).
The weight percent of coating range of Harpell substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 13-15. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Harpell, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Since both Smeets in view of Fujiwara and Harpell teach rope made from ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene yarns coated with polyolefins, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coated HMPE fiber of Smeets in view of Fujiwara to be coated and impregnated with 10-50 wt% of the plastomer (polymeric resin) because it is known in the art as a suitable plastomer amount to provide a rope.
With respect to claim 28, Smeets in view of Fujiwara teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. As discussed above, Smeets teaches the plastomer (polymeric resin) may be a thermoplastic copolymer of ethylene or propylene (page 2, lines 8-11).
Smeets in view of Fujiwara is silent as to the plastomer (polymeric resin) comprising linear low density polyethylene, very low density polyethylene, low density polyethylene, isotactic polypropylene, atactic polypropylene, syndiotactic propylene, or blends thereof.
Harpell teaches a coated polyolefin fiber comprising a monofilament or multifilament fiber of polyethylene or polypropylene and a coating on the monofilament and on at least a portion of the filaments of the multifilament containing a polymer having ethylene or propylene crystallinity (page 2, lines 25-38). The fiber includes ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene (page 3, lines 7-11). Harpell further teaches suitable coating materials include polyethylene, polyethylene copolymers, low density polyethylene, high density polyethylene, polypropylene, polypropylene copolymers, isotactic polypropylene, syndiotactic polypropylene, and atactic polypropylene (page 6, lines 2-21).
Both Smeets in view of Fujiwara and Harpell teach rope made from ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene yarns coated with polyethylene and/or polypropylene copolymers. It therefor would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the polyethylene/polypropylene copolymer plastomer of Smeets in view of Fujiwara to be one of the materials of Harpell, including low density polyethylene, isotactic polypropylene, syndiotactic polypropylene, and atactic polypropylene, with the expectation that the predictable result of a coated UHMWPE rope suitable for a wide variety of uses would be obtained. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 42-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smeets (WO 2011/154383)7,8 in view of Fujiwara (JP H02-61146)1,2,9 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tam (US 2013/0059494).
With respect to claims 42-43, Smeets in view of Fujiwara teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Smeets in view of Fujiwara is silent as to the resin-impregnated body comprising a surface active ingredient, particularly an ionic or non-ionic surfactant.
Tam teaches polymer fibers comprising highly oriented, high molecular weight polyethylene fibers (paragraph [0046]). Tam further teaches the use of conventional fiber surface finishes, such as non-ionic emulsifiers (surfactants), which are capable of being washed off with only water (paragraph [0023]).
Since both Smeets in view of Fujiwara and Tam teach high performance polyethylene fibers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to treat the surface of the polyethylene fibers of Smeets with a non-ionic surfactant because it is known in the art as a conventional fiber surface finish and is capable of being washed off with water.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §112
The rejections of claims 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention, are overcome by Applicants amendments to the claims in the response filed May 29, 2026.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §103
Applicant’s arguments submitted in the response filed May 26, 2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On pages 10-11 of the response Applicant submits that Smeets relates to a rope containing a high modulus polyethylene (HMPE) yarns wherein it is the rope that is coated with the polymeric resin instead of the individual fibers in the rope. Applicant concludes that Smeets does not teach or suggest the amended claims.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Page 1, lines 20-25 of Smeets states that the rope contains HMPE yarns comprising HMPE fibers, the HMPE fibers being impregnated with a plastomer deposited between and around the fibers. Therefore Smeets teaches impregnation and coating of the individual fibers as is claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm EST.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
1 Cited in IDS
2 Previously presented
3 Machine translation used as reference
4 Cited in IDS
5 Previously presented
6 Machine translation used as reference
7 Cited in IDS
8 Previously presented
9 Machine translation used as reference
Prosecution Insights