Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/685,632

CUT RESISTANT JACKET

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Feb 22, 2024
Examiner
OH, HARRY Y
Art Unit
3657
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Lankhorst Euronete Portugal S A
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
584 granted / 684 resolved
+33.4% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
707
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.6%
-33.4% vs TC avg
§103
37.0%
-3.0% vs TC avg
§102
16.2%
-23.8% vs TC avg
§112
31.2%
-8.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 684 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Priority The applicant’s claim to priority of PT20211000034892 on 9/14/2021 is acknowledged. Information Disclosure Statement The applicant filed an IDS on 2/22/24. It has been annotated and considered. Claim Objections Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claims 1-20, the way the claims are written needs to be amended for clarity. For claim 1, it should begin –A jacketed mooring rope comprising--. Since claims 2-20 are dependent on claim 1, the claims should begin --The jacketed mooring rope according to claim 1--.Appropriate correction is required. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 7, 9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hurlen (US 20140090549 hereinafter Hurlen). Regarding claim 1, Hurlen teaches a jacketed mooring rope (See at least: Fig. 2 item 3 “lengthy body”) comprising a core rope and a jacket surrounding said core rope (See at least: Fig. 2 items 2 “jacket” and 34 “body”; [0029] FIG. 2 shows another embodiment, wherein the lengthy body 3 is comprised of one body 34, such as, for example, a hawser, a metal thread, a hose, a stiff pipe or a pliable, electric conductor.), wherein the jacket comprises a braided layer of level 2 braided strands and wherein said level 2 braided strands each comprise a braided plurality of level 1 braided strands (See at least: Fig.2 items 12 “braided ribbon” i.e. level 2 braided strand and items 120 “threads” and 122 “interlaced elements”; [0030] In FIGS. 1-3, embodiments are shown wherein the braided ribbon 12 is comprised of twelve threads 120. The threads 120 may be textile threads chosen from a group comprising a mono-filament, a bundle, a yarn, a strand, a hawser, and a cable. Further, the threads 120 may be comprised of braided textile elements which may be comprised of a monofilament, a bundle, a yarn, a strand, a hawser, or a cable.; [0031] In FIG. 2 and FIG. 3, the braided ribbon 12 is shown in an alternative embodiment. The braided ribbon 12 is provided with a plurality of lengthy, interlaced elements 122.1). Regarding claim 7, Hurlen teaches a jacketed mooring rope wherein each level 2 braided strand comprises 3 to 64 level 1 braided strands (See at least: Fig. 2). Regarding claim 9, Hurlen teaches a jacketed mooring rope wherein the core rope comprises polyester strands that are braided together (See at least: [0038] The threads 32, 120 and the interlaced elements 122 may be comprised of, for example, synthetic fibres, such as polyester, polyamide, polypropylene, polyethylene, including so-called UHMWPE (ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene), aramid or vectran. The threads 32, 120 and the interlaced elements 122 may be comprised of the same material, or they may be comprised of various materials.). Regarding claim 11, Hurlen teaches a jacketed mooring wherein the jacket is free of a metal wire (See at least: [0028] In the figures, reference numeral 12 denotes a braided braid element. The braid element 12 is comprised of a braided ribbon. A plurality of braid elements 12 are braided around a lengthy, load-bearing body 3 and form a jacket 2. In figures 1 and 2 it is shown that the jacket 2 is formed by twelve braid elements 12. In FIG. 1, the lengthy, load-bearing body 3 is shown as a plurality of threads 32. The threads 32 may be comprised of textile threads chosen from a group comprising a monofilament, a bundle, a yarn, a strand, a hawser, and a cable. Further, the thread 32 may be comprised of braided textile elements which may be comprised of a mono-filament, a bundle, a yarn, a strand, a hawser or a cable.). Regarding claim 12, Hurlen teaches a jacketed mooring rope wherein the jacket is a single braided layer of the level 2 braided strands (See at least: Fig. 2). 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurlen in view of Schneiders et al. (US 20110111200 hereinafter Schneiders). Regarding claim 5, Hurlen fails to teach the following limitation, but Schneiders teaches a jacketed mooring rope wherein the level 1 braided strands have a diameter of less than 5 mm (See at least: [0044] “The rope may be a single core or a multi-core rope. In a multi-core rope the rope contains a core containing a plurality of parallel or essentially parallel strands, the core being surrounded by the cover. In this way a rope is obtained that is very strong, has a low weight and is highly resistant to abrasion. In one preferred embodiment the rope has a diameter of at least 5 mm…” Note:; A rope of at least 5mm teaches strands that are less than 5mm). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Hurlen in view of Schneiders to teach a jacketed mooring rope wherein the level 1 braided strands have a diameter of less than 5 mm so that the jacketed mooring rope is of a desired size once braided. Claim 10 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurlen and Hermes (US 20200141054 hereinafter Hermes). Regarding claim 10, Hurlen fails to teach the following limitation, but Hermes teaches a jacketed mooring rope wherein the level 2 braided strands and the level 1 braided strands comprise fibers having a yarn count of at least 440 den; a tenacity of at least 5 g/den; and/or a modulus of at least 100 g/den (See at least: [0007] via “U.S. Pat. No. 8,747,715 teaches a process for producing high tenacity polyethylene yarns wherein fibers are highly oriented to form a product having a tenacity of greater than about 45 g/d and a tensile modulus of greater than about 1400 g/d.“). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Hurlen in view of Hermes to teach a jacketed mooring rope wherein the level 2 braided strands and the level 1 braided strands comprise fibers having a yarn count of at least 440 den; a tenacity of at least 5 g/den; and/or a modulus of at least 100 g/den so that the jacketed mooring rope is strong enough to be used for a task without breaking. Regarding claim 14, Hurlen in view of Hermes teaches the core rope for use in the jacket of the jacketed mooring rope, wherein said core rope comprises the braided plurality of level 1 braided strands that each comprise a braided plurality of yarns surrounding one or more core yarns,and wherein the braided yarns and the core yarns comprise fibers having a yarn count of at least 440 den; a tenacity of at least 5 g/den,; and/or a modulus of at least 100 g/den, preferably at least 1300 g/den (refer to claim 10 for reasoning and rationale). Regarding claim 15, Hurlen a jacket of a jacketed rope to provide cut-resistance to the jacketed rope (See at least: [0006] via “During use, the mooring equipment may be exposed to a cut from a sharp object. The protective jacket should be constructed in such a manner that the protective jacket provides protection against the cut from most possible angles at which the cut may be directed towards the mooring equipment, and such that the protective jacket does not open”). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-4, 8, 13, and 16-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry Oh whose telephone number is (571)270-5912. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 9:00-3:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /HARRY Y OH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 22, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600028
INDUSTRIAL ROBOT COMPRISING AN AXLE DRIVE WITH A COMPACT CONSTRUCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589503
ROBOT CONTROL APPARATUS, ROBOT CONTROL SYSTEM, AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING ROBOT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589498
Deployment System for Additive Manufacturing Robot Fleet
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589486
ROBOT AND ROBOT-CONTROLLING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12576541
SURFACE FINISH QUALITY EVALUATION SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+18.3%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 684 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month