Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/734,475

Warp Knit and Braided Fabrics with Electrical Components

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Jun 05, 2024
Examiner
HURLEY, SHAUN R
Art Unit
3732
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Apple Inc.
OA Round
3 (Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
4-5
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
1285 granted / 1655 resolved
+7.6% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+17.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
1683
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
32.8%
-7.2% vs TC avg
§102
28.3%
-11.7% vs TC avg
§112
28.5%
-11.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1655 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 . Drawings The drawings were received on 30 September 2025. These drawings are acceptable. 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)(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. Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dias et al (20170275789). In regards to Claim 10, Dias teaches a braided fabric, comprising: strands that are braided together to form a sheath (Detail 12; Paragraph 18 teaches braiding); a conductive strand comprising a metal wire (Detail 8; Paragraph 17 teaches copper filament); and an electrical component (Detail 2; semiconductor chip) mounted to the conductive strand and surrounded by the sheath (Figure 1). In regards to Claim 11, Dias teaches the sheath surrounds a longitudinal axis of the braided fabric and wherein the conductive strand comprises an inlaid conductive strand that extends parallel to the longitudinal axis (Figure 1). In regards to Claim 12, Dias teaches the strands are braided around the inlaid conductive strand (Figure 1, Paragraph 18 teaches braiding). In regards to Claim 13, Dias teaches the electrical component is soldered to the conductive strand (Paragraph 7). 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(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dias et al in view of Sloan et al (WO 2021263086). In regards to Claim 14, while Dias essentially teaches the invention as detailed above, it fails to specifically teach the strands are braided together in a triaxial braid. Sloan, however, teaches that when braiding structures, it is well known to braid them as either biaxial (Figure 1) or triaxial (Figure 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have braided the structure of Dias as a triaxial braid, so as to increase longitudinal strength by adding a third set of strands aligned with the longitudinal axis (Figure 10). Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Head et al (20160076178) in view of Sloan et al. In regards to Claim 15, Head teaches braiding equipment, comprising: carriers (Detail 114) configured to dispense strands (Detail 112), wherein the carriers move the strands over and under one another to create a braid (Detail 110) with the strands; and an insertion tool (Detail 140) configured to insert an electrical component (Figure 6, Detail 192) into the braid and to apply a force on the electrical component while the strands are braided around the electrical component (applies a force counter to gravity by holding). While Head essentially teaches the invention as detailed, it fails to specifically state that the carriers have bobbins to dispense the strands. Sloan, however, teaches that when braiding, it is well known that carriers have bobbins (Figure 4B, Detail 150). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the carriers of Head would contain bobbins, as taught by Sloan, so as to feed the strands in an orderly manner. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 21-27, 29, and 30 are allowed. Claims 16-20 and 31 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. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shaun R Hurley whose telephone number is (571)272-4986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:00am - 3:00pm. 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, Clinton T Ostrup can be reached at (571) 272-5559. 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. /SHAUN R HURLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 05, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Sep 18, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 18, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 30, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 10, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 10, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 31, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 10, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589047
CATCHER'S KNEE EXOSKELETON
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590391
BRAIDING MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582572
MASSAGE ROLLER WITH MOVABLE ARM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577730
ANTISTATIC COVER-CORE-ROPE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577731
STEEL CORD, PRODUCTION METHOD THEREOF, AND TIRE
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

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+17.4%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1655 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