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
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 8, 11, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herdman (US 2018/0245301 A1) in view of Bond (US 2015/0260329 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Herdman (US 2018/0245301 A1) discloses a pole cap (Fig 1-4) (for installing on an end of a pole (14)), comprising: a body (10) having a peripheral edge (portion or edge about 42) and a central portion (portion about 24); and a plurality of slits (23,25,47,49; as seen by figures these are long narrow cuts) in the body, the plurality of slits (23,47,49) extending from the peripheral edge (e.g. edge of 24 with 49) and toward the central portion (see Fig 1-4) of the body, the body (10) comprising a multilayer structure (20,22), the multilayer structure comprising: a polymer layer (22; [0053]) having a first surface (surface of 22 towards 20) and a second surface (surface of 22 away from 20) opposite the first surface, the second surface for facing the end (12) of the pole; and a rubber containing layer (20; [0039,0050]) disposed over the first surface of the polymer layer (22).
Herdman does not disclose a fire resistant composition disposed over the rubber containing layer.
Bond (US 2015/0260329 A1) teaches of a pole cap (Fig 1-3) (for installing on a pole (302)), comprising: a multilayer structure (100), the multilayer structure comprising: a polymer layer (108; [0029] “polyurethane”; inner 102 closer to 108; [0029] “nylon”) having a first surface (surface of 108 towards inner 102; surface of inner 102 towards 104) and a second surface (surface of 102,108 towards the middle of 108) opposite the first surface, the second surface for facing the end of the pole; and a rubber containing layer (104; [0029]) disposed over the first surface of the polymer layer (102;108); and a fire resistant composition (outer 102; [0029,0033] claim 9, “flame retardant”) disposed over the rubber containing layer (104).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cap as disclosed by Herdman, comprising a fire resistant composition disposed over the rubber containing layer as taught by Bond, in order to provide protecting from flame (Bond, [0017,0029-0033], claim 9).
Regarding Claim 2, Herdman in view of Bond teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Herdman further discloses the pole cap (Fig 1-4) of claim 1, wherein a first slit of the plurality of slits (23,47,49) separates a first member (e.g. portion of Fig 1A above 47 in up-down direction) and a second member (e.g. portion of Fig 1A below 47 in up-down direction) of the body, the first member and second member being movable relative to one another into an overlapped configuration (51).
Regarding Claim 3, Herdman in view of Bond teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Herdman (in Fig 1-4) does not explicitly show the pole cap of claim 1 wherein the plurality of slits comprises four to twelve slits.
However Herdman teaches a plurality of slits, potentially greater than two ([0043,0046-0047]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cap as taught by Herdman in view of Bond, wherein the plurality of slits comprises four to twelve slits, in order to reduce or eliminate ripples upon application of the cap and control overlap (Herdman, [0041-0045]) since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, page 6, [0029] – page 8, [0034], Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding Claim 8, Herdman in view of Bond teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Herdman further discloses the pole cap (Fig 1-4) of claim 1, wherein the body is substantially circular (see Fig 1,4).
Regarding Claim 11, Herdman in view of Bond teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Herdman further discloses the pole cap of claim 1, wherein the polymer layer (22; [0053]) comprises a polymer formed from at least one C2 to C40 alpha-olefin ([0053] “polyethylene”; note that this is the same material given as an example by Applicant in Applicant’s Specification, [0050-0054]).
Regarding Claim 12, Herdman in view of Bond teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Herdman further discloses the pole cap of claim 11, wherein the at least one C2 to C40 alpha-olefin is ethylene ([0053] “polyethylene”; note that this is the same material given as an example by Applicant in Applicant’s Specification, [0050-0054]), propylene, or both.
Regarding Claim 19, Herdman discloses a pole protection system (Fig 1-4), comprising: a pole cap (10) for mounting to an end of a pole (14), the pole cap comprising: a body (10) having a peripheral edge (portion or edge about 42) and a central portion (portion about 24); and a plurality of slits (23,25,47,49; as seen by figures these are long narrow cuts) in the body, the plurality of slits (23,47,49) extending from the peripheral edge (e.g. edge of 24 with 49) and toward the central portion (see Fig 1-4) of the body, the body comprising a multilayer structure (20,22), the multilayer structure comprising: a polymer layer (22; [0053]) having a first surface (surface of 22 towards 20) and a second surface (surface of 22 away from 20) opposite the first surface, the second surface for facing the end (12) of the pole (14); a rubber containing layer (20; [0039,0050]), the rubber containing layer (20) disposed over the first surface of the polymer layer (22); and a wrap (30) for covering a face of the pole (14), the wrap comprising: a substrate (22).
Herdman does not disclose a coating disposed over the first surface of the rubber containing layer, the coating comprising a first fire resistant composition and a coating disposed over the substrate, the coating comprising a second fire resistant composition, the first and second fire resistant compositions being the same or different.
Bond (US 2015/0260329 A1) teaches of a pole cap (Fig 1-3) (for installing on a pole (302)), comprising: a multilayer structure (100), the multilayer structure comprising: a polymer layer (108; [0029] “polyurethane”; inner 102 closer to 108; [0029] “nylon”) having a first surface (surface of 108 towards inner 102; surface of inner 102 towards 104) and a second surface (surface of 102,108 towards the middle of 108) opposite the first surface, the second surface for facing the end of the pole; and a rubber containing layer (104; [0029]) disposed over the first surface of the polymer layer (102;108); and a coating (outer 102; [0029,0033] claim 9, “flame retardant”) disposed over the first surface of the rubber containing layer (104), the coating comprising a fire resistant composition ([0029,0033] claim 9, “flame retardant”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed by Herdman, comprising a coating disposed over the first surface of the rubber containing layer, the coating comprising a first fire resistant composition as taught by Bond, in order to provide protecting from flame (Bond, [0017,0029-0033], claim 9). As Herdman teaches the wrap as part of the body, the composition as taught by Bond would be applied to all of the substrate of Herdman. Therefore the combination of Herdman in view of Bond would teach a coating disposed over the first surface of the rubber containing layer, the coating comprising a first fire resistant composition and a coating disposed over the substrate, the coating comprising a second fire resistant composition, the first and second fire resistant compositions being the same, as the integral structure of Herdman includes the body, central portion and wrap and a coating as taught by Bond would be applied to the entire cap structure.
Claim(s) 4 – 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herdman (US 2018/0245301 A1) in view of Bond (US 2015/0260329 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 19 above and further in view of Dodge (US 5,421,556).
Regarding Claim 4, Herdman in view of Bond teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Herdman further discloses the pole cap (Fig 1-4) of claim 1, wherein: the peripheral edge (portion or edge about 42) of the body is defined by a plurality of edges (edges separated by 23,47,49).
Herdman does not disclose the pole cap wherein the body has a shape of a polygon formed from the plurality of edges.
Dodge (US 5,421,556) teaches of a pole cap (Fig 5), wherein: a body (body of 13) has a shape of a polygon (see Fig 5) formed from the plurality of edges (edges of 13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cap as taught by Herdman in view of Bond, wherein the body has a shape of a polygon formed from the plurality of edges as taught by Dodge, in order to allow the cap to fit a different shaped pole, for example a square-shaped pole (Dodge, Column 3, lines 26-45).
Regarding Claim 5, Herdman in view of Bond and Dodge teaches the limitations of the preceding claim and Herdman further teaches the pole cap (Fig 1-4) of claim 4, wherein a number of slits (as seen by Fig 1A, two slits 47; as seen in Fig 1B, two slits 49) of the plurality of slits is equal to a number of edges (as seen by Fig 1A,1B, two edges formed at left 42 and right 42) of the plurality of edges.
Regarding Claim 6, Herdman in view of Bond and Dodge teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Herdman does not disclose the pole cap of claim 4, wherein each slit of the plurality of slits is positioned between two adjacent vertices of the polygon.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cap as taught by Herdman in view of Bond and Dodge, wherein each slit of the plurality of slits is positioned between two adjacent vertices of the polygon, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, in order to improve the fit or connection between the cap and pole. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, page 7 [0031-0033], Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding Claim 7, Herdman in view of Bond and Dodge teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Herdman does not disclose the pole cap of claim 6, wherein each slit of the plurality of slits is positioned at a location that is substantially centered between two adjacent vertices of the polygon.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cap as taught by Herdman in view of Bond and Dodge, wherein each slit of the plurality of slits is positioned at a location that is substantially centered between two adjacent vertices of the polygon, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, in order to improve the fit or connection between the cap and pole. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, page 7 [0031-0033], Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding Claim 20, Herdman in view of Bond teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Herdman further discloses the pole protection system (Fig 1-4) of claim 19, wherein: the peripheral edge (portion or edge about 42) of the body is defined by a plurality of edges (edges separated by 23,47,49).
Herdman does not disclose the system the body is the shape of a polygon formed from the plurality of edges; and each slit of the plurality of slits is positioned between a different pair of two adjacent vertices of the polygon.
Dodge (US 5,421,556) teaches of a pole cap (Fig 5), wherein: a body (body of 13) has a shape of a polygon (see Fig 5) formed from the plurality of edges (edges of 13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system as taught by Herdman in view of Bond, the body is the shape of a polygon formed from the plurality of edges as taught by Dodge, in order to allow the cap to fit a different shaped pole, for example a square-shaped pole (Dodge, Column 3, lines 26-45).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cap as taught by Herdman in view of Bond and Dodge, wherein each slit of the plurality of slits is positioned between a different pair of two adjacent vertices of the polygon, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, in order to improve the fit or connection between the cap and pole. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, page 7 [0031-0033], Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 9 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herdman (US 2018/0245301 A1) in view of Bond (US 2015/0260329 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Lai (US 2019/0085178 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Herdman in view of Bond teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Herdman does not disclose the pole cap of claim 1, wherein the fire resistant composition comprises or is derived from: an intumescent compound; a binder comprising a thermoplastic compound and a thermoset compound; a catalyst; and a blowing agent.
Lai (US 2019/0085178 A1) teaches of a fire resistant composition ([0004,0007,0020]) comprises or is derived from: an intumescent compound ([0007-0014]); a binder ([0015-0021]) comprising a thermoplastic compound ([0007,0020]) and a thermoset compound ([0007,0020]); a catalyst ([0022]); and a blowing agent ([0024]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cap with coating as taught by Herdman in view of Bond, wherein the fire resistant composition comprises or is derived from: an intumescent compound; a binder comprising a thermoplastic compound and a thermoset compound; a catalyst; and a blowing agent as taught by Lai, in order to form a protection from fire, form an insulating barrier, meet desirable fire retardancy, provide a matrix, and provide expansion (Lai, [0004-0015]).
Regarding Claim 10, Herdman in view of Bond and Lai teaches the limitations of the preceding claim and Lai further teaches the pole cap of claim 9, wherein a weight ratio of the thermoplastic compound to the thermoset compound is in a range of about 10:1 to about 1:3 ([0020]).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herdman (US 2018/0245301 A1) in view of Bond (US 2015/0260329 A1) as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Queen (US 2017/0016197 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Herdman in view of Bond teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Herdman does not disclose the pole cap of claim 11, wherein the polymer layer comprises polypropylene.
Queen (US 2017/0016197 A1) teaches of polymer layer (10) comprises polypropylene ([0024]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cap with coating as taught by Herdman in view of Bond, wherein the polymer layer comprises polypropylene as taught by Queen, in order to provide a commercially available material (Queen, [0024]) and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, page 12 [0050 – page 14 [0054], Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 14 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herdman (US 2018/0245301 A1) in view of Bond (US 2015/0260329 A1) and Lai (US 2019/0085178 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Herdman discloses a pole cap (Fig 1-4) for coupling to an end of a pole (14), the pole cap comprising: a body (10) having a peripheral edge (portion or edge about 42) and a central portion (portion about 24), the peripheral edge defined by a plurality of edges (edges of the portions between slits 47-47 in Fig 1A or between 49-49 in Fig 1B); and a plurality of slits (23,25,47,49; as seen by figures these are long narrow cuts) in the body, the plurality of slits (23,47,49) extending from the peripheral edge (e.g. edge of 24 with 49) and toward the central portion (see Fig 1-4) of the body, each slit (23,47,49) of the plurality of slits extending (see Fig 1-4 showing 23,47,49 extending from an edge of 24) from each edge of the plurality of edges, the plurality of slits forming a plurality of members (e.g. portion of Fig 1A above 47 in up-down direction and portion of Fig 1A below 47 in up-down direction), the plurality of members being movable relative to one another into an overlapped configuration (51), wherein the body comprises a multilayer structure (20,22), the multilayer structure comprising: a polymer layer (22; [0053]) having a first surface (surface of 22 towards 20) and a second surface (surface of 22 away from 20) opposite the first surface, the second surface for facing the end (12) of the pole (14); a rubber containing layer (20; [0039,0050]) having a first surface (surface of 20 away from 22) and a second surface, the second surface (surface of 20 towards 22) of the rubber containing layer disposed over the first surface of the polymer layer.
Herdman does not disclose a coating disposed over the first surface of the rubber containing layer, the coating comprising a fire resistant composition, the fire resistant composition comprising: an intumescent compound; and a binder comprising a thermoplastic compound and a thermoset compound.
Bond (US 2015/0260329 A1) teaches of a pole cap (Fig 1-3) (for installing on a pole (302)), comprising: a multilayer structure (100), the multilayer structure comprising: a polymer layer (108; [0029] “polyurethane”; inner 102 closer to 108; [0029] “nylon”) having a first surface (surface of 108 towards inner 102; surface of inner 102 towards 104) and a second surface (surface of 102,108 towards the middle of 108) opposite the first surface, the second surface for facing the end of the pole; and a rubber containing layer (104; [0029]) disposed over the first surface of the polymer layer (102;108); and a coating (outer 102; [0029,0033] claim 9, “flame retardant”) disposed over the first surface of the rubber containing layer (104), the coating comprising a fire resistant composition ([0029,0033] claim 9, “flame retardant”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cap as disclosed by Herdman, comprising a coating disposed over the first surface of the rubber containing layer, the coating comprising a fire resistant composition as taught by Bond, in order to provide protecting from flame (Bond, [0017,0029-0033], claim 9).
Lai (US 2019/0085178 A1) teaches of a coating ([0004,0007,0020]), the coating comprising a fire resistant composition ([0004,0007]), the fire resistant composition comprising: an intumescent compound ([0007-0014]); and a binder ([0015-0021]) comprising a thermoplastic compound ([0007,0020]) and a thermoset compound ([0007,0020]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cap with coating as taught by Herdman in view of Bond, wherein the fire resistant composition comprising: an intumescent compound; and a binder comprising a thermoplastic compound and a thermoset compound as taught by Lai, in order to form a protection from fire, form an insulating barrier, meet desirable fire retardancy, provide a matrix, and provide expansion (Lai, [0004-0015]).
Regarding Claim 15, Herdman in view of Bond and Lai teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Herdman (in Fig 1-4) does not explicitly show the pole cap of claim 14 wherein the plurality of slits comprises four to twelve slits.
However Herdman teaches a plurality of slits, potentially greater than two ([0043,0046-0047]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cap as taught by Herdman in view of Bond and Lai, wherein the plurality of slits comprises four to twelve slits, in order to reduce or eliminate ripples upon application of the cap and control overlap (Herdman, [0041-0045]) since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, page 6, [0029] – page 8, [0034], Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding Claim 16, Herdman in view of Bond and Lai teaches the limitations of the preceding claim and Herdman further teaches the pole cap (Fig 1-4) of claim 14, wherein a number of slits (as seen by Fig 1A, two slits 47; as seen in Fig 1B, two slits 49) of the plurality of slits is equal to a number of edges (as seen by Fig 1A,1B, two edges formed at left 42 and right 42) of the plurality of edges.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herdman (US 2018/0245301 A1) in view of Bond (US 2015/0260329 A1) and Lai (US 2019/0085178 A1), as applied to claim 14 above and further in view of Dodge (US 5,421,556).
Regarding Claim 17, Herdman in view of Bond and Lai teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Herdman does not disclose the pole cap of claim 14 wherein the body has a shape of a polygon, the polygon formed from the plurality of edges.
Dodge (US 5,421,556) teaches of a pole cap (Fig 5), wherein: a body (body of 13) has a shape of a polygon (see Fig 5) formed from a plurality of edges (edges of 13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cap as taught by Herdman in view of Bond and Lai, wherein the body has a shape of a polygon, the polygon formed from the plurality of edges as taught by Dodge, in order to allow the cap to fit a different shaped pole, for example a square-shaped pole (Dodge, Column 3, lines 26-45).
Regarding Claim 18, Herdman in view of Bond, Lai and Dodge teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Herdman does not disclose the pole cap of claim 17, wherein each slit of the plurality of slits is positioned between a different pair of two adjacent vertices of the polygon.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cap as taught by Herdman in view of Bond, Lai and Dodge, wherein each slit of the plurality of slits is positioned between a different pair of two adjacent vertices of the polygon, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, in order to improve the fit or connection between the cap and pole. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, page 7 [0031-0033], Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Wall (US 10,899,116 B2) teaches of a pole cap (Fig 1-4) for installing on an end of a pole (30) comprising a multilayered structure (Column 3, lines 22-56), including a rubber. This reference could be used in a 103 Rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSHN K VARGHESE whose telephone number is (571)270-7975. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 900 am-300 pm.
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, Jessica Han can be reached at 571-272-2078. 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.
/ROSHN K VARGHESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896