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 with traverse of Group I and Species 1 in the reply filed on 9/19/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that is would not be a serious burden on the examiner to examine all the claims because any field of search for one group would necessarily overlap with the field of search for the other groups. This is not found persuasive because there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 9, 11 and 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species.
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 (when necessary) USPAP 2019/0291383 to Woodruff.
Claim 1, Knudson discloses an electromagnetic interference shielding, self-wrappable textile sleeve for providing EMI protection about an elongate member, comprising: an outer wall of interlaced yarns/wires, said outer wall having opposite outer edges extending lengthwise between opposite outer ends; said interlaced yarns/wires including heat-set yarn biasing said outer edges into overlapping relation with one another and yarn/wire 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 using two walls of said interlaced yarns/wires but the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.). MPEP 2144.04. Plus, the examiner takes official notice that it is known in the art to construct an EMI sleeve with more than one layer (e.g. a double fabric layer construction) to provide a successive shielding effect and/or minimize any compromising of the shielding integrity resulting from tearing, wear or other damage to a single fabric layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the EMI sleeve of Knudson with the claimed double fabric layer construction because the duplication or parts is obvious and/or to provide a successive shielding effect and/or minimize any compromising of the shielding integrity resulting from tearing, wear or other damage to a single fabric layer.
Claims 2 and 3, Woodruff discloses that it is known in the self-wrappable protective sleeve art to construct a double fabric layer sleeve with the outer wall fixed to the inner wall between the opposite outer and inner ends, the connection extending adjacent the opposite outer and inner edges and the outer wall and the inner wall are detached from one another between the connection (see entire document including [0002] and [0004]-[0007]). The examiner takes official notice that stitching is well-known method of connecting two fabric layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art connect the two fabric layers as claimed to provide a sleeve capable of self-wrapping.
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.
Claims 8 and 10, the interlaced yarn/wire is woven ([0005] and [0046]).
Claim 12, the interlaced yarn/wire may be provided, at least in part, as bundles of wire ([0007] and [0048]).
Conclusion
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