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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 24 June 2026 has been entered.
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) 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11-15, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilson et al (20130167502).
In regards to Claim 1, Wilson teaches a composite wire (Figure 1C) comprising a
thermoplastic (Paragraph 100) monofilament as a core component (Detail 2) and a sheath, the sheath comprises at least two groups (Details 23, 24) of reinforcement threads (Details 2ʹʹ, 2ʹʹʹ) wrapped around the core component, wherein the number of groups of reinforcement threads is an even number (two; Details 2ʹʹ, 2ʹʹʹ), wherein the at least two groups of reinforcement threads form angles with the core component with the overall sum of all angles being substantially zero (illustrated as being twisted in opposite directions, at substantially opposite angles); and
wherein the core component comprises reinforcement fibers (Details 1), wherein the reinforcement fibers comprise carbon fibers, steel wire, aluminum wire, polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene naphthalate, polyvinyl acetate, cellulose filaments, polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinyl acetate, polyamide-5, polyamide-6, polyamide-5,6, polyamide-5,10, polyamide-6,6, polyamide-4,10, polyamide-6,10, polyamide-6,8, polyamide-10 or polyamide-11, proteinous fibers, aromatic polyamides, polyphenylene benzobisoxazole, ultra high molecular weight polyethylene or aromatic polyesters or copolymers comprising monomers of said materials or mixtures of said materials (Paragraph 137, carbon fibers).
In regards to Claim 2, Wilson teaches the core component has a diameter of at least 0.3 and at most 1.2 mm (Paragraph 22).
In regards to Claim 5, Wilson teaches at least two groups of reinforcement threads are wound around the core component and/or at least two groups of reinforcement threads are wrapped around the core component (Figure 1C).
In regards to Claim 6, Wilson teaches the core component forms an angle of at least ± 15 degrees with every group of reinforcement threads (Figure 1C shows angles greater than ± 15 degrees).
In regards to Claim 8, Wilson teaches the core component comprises at least one fiber bundle, yarn, or cord (Paragraph 137, yarn).
In regards to Claim 9, Wilson teaches each of the reinforcement fibers in the core component comprise a monofilament (Paragraph 96).
In regards to Claim 11, Wilson teaches the materials comprised in the reinforcement fibers are in part or in total biological and/or recycled materials (there is no structural difference between virgin fibers, and fibers left over from a previous process which are recycled instead of being discarded; the claim is drawn to a product, not a method).
In regards to Claim 12, Wilson teaches the core component comprises polyethylene terephthalate, polytrimethylen terephthalate, polybutylene terephthalate, polyethylene naphthalate aromatic polyesters, aromatic polyamides comprising para-polyphenylene terephthalamide or meta polyphenylene isophthalamide, polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinyl acetate, polyphenylene benzobisoxazole, polyamide-5, polyamide-6, polyamide-6,6, polyamide-5,6, polyamide-4,10, polyamide-6,10, polyamide-6,8, polyamide-10 or polyamide-11, ultra high molecular weight polyethylene, polyurethane or polyetheretherketone, copolymers comprising monomers of said materials or mixtures of said materials (Paragraph 100, polyetheretherketone).
In regards to Claim 13, Wilson teaches the materials comprised in the core component are in part or in total biological and/or recycled materials (there is no structural difference between virgin fibers, and fibers left over from a previous process which are recycled instead of being discarded; the claim is drawn to a product, not a method).
In regards to Claim 14, Wilson teaches the reinforcement threads comprise glass, carbon fibers, steel wire, aluminum wire, polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene naphthalate, polyvinyl acetate, cellulose filaments, polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinyl acetate, polyamide-5, polyamide-6, polyamide-5,6, polyamide-5,10, polyamide-6,6, polyamide-4,10, polyamide-6,10, polyamide-6,8, polyamide-10 or polyamide-11, proteinous fibers, aromatic polyamides, polyphenylene benzobisoxazole, ultra high molecular weight polyethylene or aromatic polyesters or copolymers comprising monomers of said materials or mixtures of said materials (Paragraph 137, carbon fibers).
In regards to Claim 15, Wilson teaches the materials comprised in the reinforcement threads are in part or in total biological and/or recycled materials (there is no structural difference between virgin fibers, and fibers left over from a previous process which are recycled instead of being discarded; the claim is drawn to a product, not a method).
In regards to Claim 22, Wilson teaches a thermoplastic string (Detail 2) comprising a thermoplastic monofilament (Detail 5) with embedded reinforcement fibers (Detail 1), wherein the thermoplastic string has a diameter of at least 0.6 mm (Paragraph 22).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al in view of Kato et al (20200140644).
In regards to Claim 3, while Wilson essentially teaches the invention as detailed above, including the inclusion of additives/fillers (Paragraph 69), it fails to specifically teach talc. Kato, however, teaches that the inclusion of talc is well known in the reinforced composite arts (Paragraph 52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included talc as taught, as to as to improve the production of the final product. Nucleating agents such as talc are well known and their use well within the abilities of the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-21 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
“Wilson fails to disclose or suggest a composite wire wherein the number of groups of reinforcement threads wrapped around the core is equal and, at the same time, the at least two groups of reinforcement threads form angles with the core component with the overall sum of all angles being substantially zero”.
First, Examiner does not understand what is meant when Applicant states “the number of groups of reinforcement threads wrapped around the core is equal”. What does this mean? Does Applicant mean even? If so, the rejection clearly states that Details 2ʹʹ and 2ʹʹʹ are being relied upon as teaching the groups of reinforcement threads. This totals two groups, which is even. This is what the claim limitations require. Is Applicant trying to argue that the number of threads within each group must be equal? If so, this is not found in the claims.
Second, Examiner has previously explained to Applicant how the overall sum of all angles is zero. The claim language states: “wherein the at least two groups of reinforcement threads form angles with the core component with the overall sum of all angles being substantially zero”. Examiner reads this to mean the first group of reinforcement threads (2ʹʹ) forms an angle, and the second group of reinforcement threads (2ʹʹʹ) forms an angle, and the sum of these angles is substantially zero. Figure 1C clearly shows the angle of Group 2ʹʹ is substantially the opposite of the angle of Group 2ʹʹʹ, making the sums substantially zero.
Applicant argues:
“Wilson is focused on electrical power cables (See paragraph [0004] of Wilson) and not on reinforcement of polymeric materials as for the composite wire of claim 1”. Respectfully, Claim 1 is drawn to a composite wire, and Wilson teaches a composite wire.
On page 8 of the response, Applicant groups Claim 22 with the dependent claims. This is incorrect. Claim 22 is an independent claim. Since no amendment has been made, and no separate argument has been presented, the rejection is currently maintained without response.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shaun R Hurley whose telephone number is (571)272-4986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:00am - 3:00pm.
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, Clinton T Ostrup can be reached at (571) 272-5559. 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.
/SHAUN R HURLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights