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 .
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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(s) 1-3, 7, 10, 12-14, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kikuchi et al, U.S. Patent No. 5,634,499..
Kikuchi discloses a woven belt/rope. See abstract. The belt has a main body portion, a belt portion and a connecting portion which connects the main body portion to the belt portion. The main body portion is a narrow woven fabric comprising warps and weft, the belt portion has a woven portion and a width of twice as wide as the width of the main body portion and the connecting portion has a gradually expanding width. See col. 2, lines 34-57 and figure 1. The gradually expanding connecting portion, (corresponding to the claimed transition section), has a first and second width wherein the first width is different from the second width, wherein the transition section includes warp and weft strands intertwined. The width of the first and second transition sections are greater than the width of the main portion but less than the width of the belt portion. Further, the thickness of the structure decreases in the connecting portion as the yarns 5 which form a wadding in the main body are incorporated into the surface of the weave, which widens and flattens the structure. See col. 8, lines 6-67 and col. 9, lines 1-10. The rope or main body portion is hollow which corresponds to the hole in claim 13. See col. 5, lines 1-6. The belt section would be able to be sewn to a cloth which meets the limitations of claim 12. The belt section is flat and thus would have a substantially rectangular cross section. See figures. The structure can be formed from polypropylene fibers. See examples. The transition section includes warp strands along the longitudinal axis and weft strands disposed perpendicular to the longitudinal axis.
With regard to the claims as amended 2/9/26, Kikuchi teaches that the overall strength of the combined rope and belt can be 167% greater than that of the belt alone, but does not clearly disclose that this is a comparison of breaking strength of the combined rope and belt versus the belt alone. See col. 17, lines 24-39. However, it is reasonable to expect that either this value is necessarily met by the structure of Kikuchi since the belt of Kikuchi has the same structure and like materials must have like properties, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to have selected the materials and processing of the combined rope and belt of Kikuchi in order to optimize the strength, recognizing that Kikuchi teaches that the materials chose, the weave, the degree of shrinkage and the process of making all are related to the strength of the final product. See entire document, especially cols. 5-7 and col. 10, lines 46-67.
With regard to claim 12, Kikuchi teaches that the belt can be sewn to itself, (noting that the instant specification uses the term “connectors” to indicate mechanical joints such as sewn areas, see paragraph 0028 or the published application).
With regard to claims 15-18, Kikuchi discloses forming the structure by weaving with warp and weft strands to form the claimed structure. Further, claims 15-18 are drawn to a product, not the process of making the product. Product by process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. "Even though product - by process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product - by - process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe , 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The use of 35 USC 102/103 rejections for product by process claim has been approved by the courts. "[T]he lack of physical description in a product - by - process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product - by - process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith." In re Brown , 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972).
Therefore, the burden is shifted to Applicant to show that any process differences result in an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.
Claim(s) 4-6, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi et al, U.S. Patent No. 5,634,499.
Kikuchi discloses a woven belt/rope. See abstract. The belt has a main body portion, a belt portion and a connecting portion which connects the main body portion to the belt portion. The main body portion is a narrow woven fabric comprising warps and weft, the belt portion has a woven portion and a width of twice as wide as the width of the main body portion and the connecting portion has a gradually expanding width. See col. 2, lines 34-57 and figure 1. The gradually expanding connecting portion, (corresponding to the claimed transition section), has a first and second width wherein the first width is different from the second width, wherein the transition section includes warp and weft strands intertwined. The width of the first and second transition sections are greater than the width of the main portion but less than the width of the belt portion. Further, the thickness of the structure decreases in the connecting portion as the yarns 5 which form a wadding in the main body are incorporated into the surface of the weave, which widens and flattens the structure. See col. 8, lines 6-67 and col. 9, lines 1-10. The rope or main body portion is hollow which corresponds to the hole in claim 13. See col. 5, lines 1-6. The belt section would be able to be sewn to a cloth which meets the limitations of claim 12. The belt section is flat and thus would have a substantially rectangular cross section. See figures. The structure can be formed from polypropylene fibers. See examples. The transition section includes warp strands along the longitudinal axis and weft strands disposed perpendicular to the longitudinal axis.
Kikuchi differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose the relative lengths of the transition section and the rope length or the belt width and does not disclose providing multiple rope sections.
However, it would have been obvious to have provided a transition section which had a sufficient length to incorporate the strands from the rope section into the belt section. It further would have been obvious to have provided more than one rope section in order to provide a structure having multiple rope and belt sections.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kikuchi does not teach the claimed increase in breaking strength. While it is agreed that Kikuchi does not teach the claimed increase in breaking strength per se and thus the 102 rejection is withdrawn, a 102/103 rejection is set forth above for the reasons of record. Specifically, Kikuchi teaches that the combined belt and rope has a strength improvement of 167% over the rope alone, which would either necessarily meet the claimed breaking strength increase, or, in the alternative, since Kikuchi teaches how to calculate and improve the strength of the combined rope and belt, it would have been obvious to have selected the materials, weave and weave density, shrinkage and processing which produced a belt having the desired strength at break.
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 ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 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, 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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights