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 § 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NL2019011 (hereinafter NL’011) in view of Plaia (US 9573661).
Regarding claim 1, NL’011 teaches a fuse assembly (figs. 2A-C, page 8, lines 13-17, a system 1 works as a fuse assembly), comprising:
a catch (fig. 2A, line 21) having a central portion and opposing catch ends, said opposing catch ends transitioning from said central portion, said opposing catch ends defining opposing connection points for said fuse assembly (annotated fig. 2A below), said catch having a failure strength (page 13, lines 3-6, the minimal breaking load (MBL) of line 21 can be 1559KN with 2% elasticity);
a trigger (fig. 2A, line 22), said trigger having a predetermined failure point (page 13, lines 7-11, line 22 can have a reduced strand size at an MBL of about 1135 KN with 10% elasticity), and
wherein said trigger is connected to said central portion and remote from said opposing connection points (annotated fig. 2A below).
NL’011 does not clearly teach at least one catch end formed as a spliced loop.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Plaia teaches at least one catch end formed as a spliced loop (figs. 14-16, spliced loop 250).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine NL’011 with at least one catch end formed as a spliced loop as suggested by Plaia for the benefit of forming the connection parts to connect to other rope system (Plaia, fig. 16).
PNG
media_image1.png
352
665
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the modified structure NL’011-Plaia teaches said catch is configured to be in tension simultaneously with said trigger under a load (NL’011, page 13, lines 8-11, if from that point on the tensile load is increased even further, both the additional line and at least said part of the main line will stretch) and said predetermined failure point is less than said failure strength of said catch (NL’011, page 13, lines 3-11, minimal breaking load of line 21 is 1559KN while minimal breaking load of line 22 is 1135KN; page 14, lines 6-11, line 21 can be made using plastics material, for example a high strength plastics material such as UHMWPE fiber, while line 22 can be made using a plastic material, for example a less high strength and/or more elastic plastics material such as polyester or nylon (PA) material; then the predetermined failure point of the line 22 is less than said failure strength of the line 21; further in page 8, lines 13-17, any undesired breaking of the additional line will not mean a loss of connection between objects connected by the mainline, then the trigger is broken before the catch breaks).
Regarding claim 3, the modified structure NL’011-Plaia teaches said trigger is localized, weak segment of rope generally co-linear with said central portion (NL’011, page 3, lines 27-28, a line can be a rope; page 8, lines 13-17, the trigger is broken before the catch breaks; and figs. 2A-2D show the trigger is co-linear to the central portion).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NL2019011 and Plaia (US 9573661), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fields (US 2013/0139741).
Regarding claim 9, the modified structure NL’011-Plaia does not teach a first chafe protection layer over said fuse assembly.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fields teaches a first chafe protection layer (fig. 43, para. [0075], the rope fuse is comprised of a gathered or compressed woven tube) over a fuse assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure NL’011-Plaia with a woven tube as taught by Fields for the benefit of providing abrasion protection of the rope system and stopping further elongation of the rope fuse when the tube reaches its fully expanded configuration (Field, para. [0075]).
Regarding claim 10, the modified structure NL’011-Plaia does not teach a secondary chafe protection layer over said at least one connection point.
However, Fields teaches a secondary chafe protection layer (figs. 50-51, outer jackets 704, 706) over said at least one connection point.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure NL’011-Plaia with outer jackets as taught by Fields for the benefit of providing a protection layer for the rope system (Fields, para. [0085]).
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fields (US2013/0139741) in view of Plaia (US 9573661).
Regarding claim 11, Fields teaches a fuse assembly (fig. 17), comprising:
a trigger (fig. 17, para. [0053], a rope made of an initiating fiber component), said trigger having a trigger rope segment and at least one trigger end, said at least one trigger end transitioning from said trigger rope segment to define a connection point (fig. 17) for said fuse assembly, said trigger having a predetermined failure point (para. [0008], [0033], [0053]);
a catch (fig. 17, para. [0053], a rope made of a reactive fiber component) separate from said trigger but working cooperatively therewith, said catch having a failure strength (para. [0008], [0033], [0053]); and
wherein said trigger is separate from said catch (figs. 17-18).
Fields does not teach said trigger rope segment and said at least one trigger end are comprised of a continuous rope segment, the at least one trigger end formed by a spliced loop; and wherein said catch comprises a rope segment spliced back on itself to form a continuous loop.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Plaia teaches said trigger rope segment and said at least one trigger end are comprised of a continuous rope segment, the at least one trigger end formed by a spliced loop (fig. 14, a spliced loop of rope 230); and wherein said catch comprises a rope segment spliced back on itself to form a continuous loop (fig. 14, a spliced loop of rope 232).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Fields with spliced ends of the rope system as taught by Plaia for the benefit of forming the connection parts to connect to other rope system (Plaia, fig. 16).
Regarding claim 12, the modified structure Fields-Plaia teaches said trigger includes a localized, weak segment of rope, said localized, weak segment of rope connected to said trigger rope segment and thereby remote from said at least one trigger end (Fields, para. [0008], [0028], [0049], [0073], [0075], [0076], [0078]).
Regarding claim 13, the modified structure Fields-Plaia teaches a first chafe protection layer over said fuse assembly (Fields, fig. 18, braided covering 62).
Regarding claim 14, the modified structure Fields-Plaia does not clearly teach, in figs. 17-18, a secondary chafe protection layer over said connection point.
However, Fields teaches in figs. 50-51 a secondary chafe protection layer (figs. 50-51, outer jackets 704, 706) over said at least one connection point.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the rope system of Fields-Plaia with outer jackets as taught in figs. 50-51 of Fields for the benefit of providing a protection layer for the rope system (Fields, para. [0085]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NL2019011 in view of Neidermair (US 2009/0266287).
Regarding claim 18, NL’011 teaches a fuse assembly (figs. 2A-C, page 8, lines 13-17, a system 1 works as a fuse assembly), comprising:
a catch (fig. 2A, line 21) formed from a continuous rope segment (fig. 2A, page 3, lines 17-18, a line can be a rope, fig. 2A shows a continuous rope segment) having a central portion and at least one catch end, said at least one catch end transitioning from said central portion, said at least one catch end defining a connection point for said fuse assembly (annotated fig. 2A above), said catch having a failure strength (page 13, lines 3-6, the minimal breaking load (MBL) of line 21 can be 1559KN with 2% elasticity);
a trigger (fig. 2A, line 22), said trigger having a predetermined failure point (page 13, lines 7-11, line 22 can have a reduced strand size at an MBL of about 1135 KN with 10% elasticity).
NL’011 does not clearly teach in figs. 2A-2C a rope system comprising a mainline and a terminal rope, wherein the fuse assembly is connected in series with, and intermediate, said mainline and said terminal rope.
However, NL’011 teaches two connection points at two ends of the fuse assembly (figs. 2A-2C) and NL’011 teaches multiple lines 2 can be used in a towing system (page 10, lines 1-2).
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Neidermair teaches a system comprising at least three rope segments connected in series (fig. 2, para. [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add two more rope lines to two connection points of the fuse assembly of NL’011 as suggested by Neidermair for the benefit of providing a desired suitable length to the rope system.
Then in combination, the modified structure NL’011-Neidermair teaches the rope system comprising a mainline and a terminal rope, wherein the fuse assembly is connected in series with, and intermediate, said mainline and said terminal rope.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NL2019011 and Neidermair (US 2009/0266287), as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Fields (US 2013/0139741).
Regarding claim 19, the modified structure NL’011-Neidermair does not teach a first chafe protection layer over said fuse assembly.
However, Fields teaches a first chafe protection layer (fig. 43, para. [0075], the rope fuse is comprised of a gathered or compressed woven tube) over a fuse assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure NL’011-Neidermair with a woven tube as taught by Fields for the benefit of providing abrasion protection of the rope system and stopping further elongation of the rope fuse when the tube reaches its fully expanded configuration (Field, para. [0075]).
Regarding claim 20, the modified structure NL’011-Neidermair-Fields does not teach a secondary chafe protection layer over said at least one connection point.
However, Fields teaches a secondary chafe protection layer (figs. 50-51, outer jackets 704, 706) over said at least one connection point.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure NL’011-Neidermair-Fields with outer jackets as taught by Fields for the benefit of providing a protection layer for the rope system (Fields, para. [0085]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, dated 12/01/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C 102/103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the amended limitations. However, this argument is not commensurate with the rejected claims, as the limitations have not been previously presented. Thus, the amended limitations have been addressed as analyzed above.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN THI THAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM-4:30 PM 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, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. 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.
/UYEN T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3732