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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 5/22/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In the amendment filed 5/22/2026, the applicant amended claim 1 to require an outer wall “entirely” of interlaced wire. The applicant failed to cite a specification location providing written description support and the examiner is unable to located written description support.
Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. See Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983), aff’d mem., 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. See MPEP 2173.05(i).
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.
Claims 1-8, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPAP 2018/0287357 to Knudson in view of USPN 5,972,139 to Chu and USPAP 2006/0185872 to Rodrigues.
Claims 1-3, Knudson discloses an electromagnetic interference shielding, self-wrappable textile sleeve for providing EMI protection about an elongate member, comprising: a wall of interlaced yarns, said wall having opposite inner edges extending lengthwise between opposite inner ends; said interlaced yarns including heat-set yarn biasing said inner and outer edges into overlapping relation with one another and yarn having an outermost layer of conductive material bonded thereto (see entire document including [0002], [0005]-[0007], [0020] and [0046]-[0048]).
Knudson does not appear to mention an outer wall of interlaced wire but Knudson does disclose that further enhance maintaining of abrasion resistance and EMI protection may be desirable [0048]. Chu discloses that it is known in the art that an outer sleeve of interlaced wire provides an outer surface that is appealing to the eyes, durable against abrasion, and provides EMI shielding (see entire document including column 1, lines 7-24 and column 3,lines 15-28). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the self-wrappable sleeve of Knudson with the claimed outer wall of interlaced wire to provide the sleeve with an appearance that is appealing to the eyes, to provide added durability against abrasion, and/or to provide added EMI shielding.
Knudson and Chu are silent regarding how to fabricate a multi-wall sleeve but Rodrigues discloses that it is known in the art to fabricate a multi-wall EMI shielding sleeve by stitching the walls together as claimed along the longitudinal direction of the sleeve adjacent the opposite outer and inner edges (see entire document including [0061] and the Figures). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to fix the walls together by stitching, as claimed, to fabricate the multi-wall sleeve.
Claim 4, the heat-set yarn includes the conductive material bonded thereto [0048].
Claim 5, the conductive material is a conductive metalized coating [0048].
Claim 6, the conductive metalized is selected from one of nickel, copper, silver, or aluminum [0048].
Claim 7, considering that the sleeve taught by the applied prior art is substantially identical to the claimed sleeve in terms of structure and materials, it would inherently possess the claimed properties. Plus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art construct the sleeve to sleeve as claimed to provide the sleeve with full spectrum shielding.
Claim 8, the interlaced wire is woven (column 1, lines 7-24 of Chu).
Claim 10, the interlaced yarn is woven ([0005] and [0046] of Knudson).
Claim 12, Chu does not appear to mention the wire being bundles of wires but Knudson discloses that it is known in the art to use bundles of wires ([0007] and [0048]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the interlaced wire from any suitable wire material, such as a bundle of wires, because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known wire construction on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/22/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
The following patent is cited to further show the state of the art with respect to self-wrapping textile sleeves: USPAP 2010/0089515 to Malloy.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights