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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 - 7, 16, 18, 19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smart (WO 99/09299) in view of Faulkner et al. (US 2022/0090501).
Regarding claim 1, Smart discloses a pumpable crib bag assembly arranged for forming a load- bearing support, the assembly comprising: a containment bag (bag tube 12) arranged to be filled with a load-bearing material (grout), the containment bag including: an upper end portion (unlabeled top adjacent wall 22); a lower end portion (unlabeled bottom adjacent wall 20); and a sidewall (unlabeled cylindrical sidewall of bag tube 12) extending between the upper and lower end portions, the sidewall being configured for surrounding the load-bearing material within the containment bag to contain the load-bearing material therein; and a reinforcing member (hoop 16 comprising a strap; page 1, line 18) extending along the sidewall for constraining the load-bearing material within the containment bag upon application of a service load to the assembly, the reinforcing member including a flattened major surface (inner surface of strap 16) for contact with the sidewall upon application of the service load to the assembly (Figs. 1 and 2; abstract; page 1, lines 18 - 19; page 3, line 2 - page 4, line 19; page 8, line 26 - page 9, line 2). Smart fails to disclose a pocket attached to the sidewall and coextending with the reinforcing member for holding the reinforcing member in contact with the sidewall, the pocket being dimensioned for supporting conformity with the reinforcing member to minimize movement of the reinforcing member with respect to the sidewall. Faulkner teaches a pocket (pocket material 24; pocket 26) attached to the sidewall (12) and coextending with the reinforcing member (wire 16) for holding the reinforcing member in contact with the sidewall, the pocket (24, 26) being dimensioned for supporting conformity with the reinforcing member (16) to minimize movement of the reinforcing member with respect to the containment bag (Figs. 4 and 5; paragraphs 0048 and 0049) to hold the reinforcing member in position along the surface of the sidewall and to prevent damage (i.e. due to tearing) to the reinforcing member. Examiner takes the position that the pocket as taught by Faulkner is configured to hold a wire therein and, although Faulkner fails to explicitly teach the reinforcing member holding the reinforcing member in contact with the sidewall, it would have been obvious to modify the size of the pocket as taught by Faulkner such that the reinforcing member is held in contact with the sidewall as a design consideration within the skill of the art since a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the pocket as taught by Faulkner to hold the reinforcing member in position along the surface of the sidewall and to prevent damage (i.e. due to tearing) to the reinforcing member.
Regarding claim 2, Smart further discloses the reinforcing member is in a form of a strap (hoop 16 comprising a strap; page 1, line 18).
Regarding claim 3, Smart further discloses the sidewall (unlabeled cylindrical sidewall of bag tube 12) has an inner wall surface and an outer wall surface each defining a total surface area, and wherein the strap (16) is at least partially secured to (the straps can be sewn directly onto either the inner or outer surface of the material; page 8, line 27 - page 9, line 2) and extends along at least one of the inner and outer wall surfaces (Figs. 1 and 2; page 8, line 27 - page 9, line 2).
Regarding claim 4, Smart further discloses the strap (16) has an upper edge and a lower edge, and wherein the flattened major surface extends between the upper edge and the lower edge (Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 5, Smart discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the flattened major surface has a width extending between the upper edge and the lower edge such that the flattened major surface contacts about one quarter to two thirds of the total surface area of the at least one of the inner and outer wall surfaces. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the width of the flattened major surface as disclosed by Smart such that the flattened major surface contacts about one quarter to two thirds of the total surface area of the at least one of the inner and outer wall surfaces, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 6, Smart discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the flattened major surface contacts about one quarter of the total surface area of the at least one of the inner and outer wall surfaces. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the width of the flattened major surface as disclosed by Smart such that the flattened major surface contacts about one quarter of the total surface area of the at least one of the inner and outer wall surfaces, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, Smart further discloses the sidewall (unlabeled cylindrical sidewall of bag tube 12) is generally cylindrical in configuration (Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 16, Smart further discloses the reinforcement member (16) is comprised of metal (page 1, line 18; page 3, lines 5 - 7).
Regarding claim 18, Smart further discloses a mesh reinforcement (14) positioned within the containment bag (12) (Figs. 1 and 2; page 3, lines 2 - 7).
Regarding claim 19, Smart further discloses the mesh reinforcement (14) includes permeable outer and inner wall surfaces, and wherein the assembly further includes an additional reinforcement member (ties, not shown, connecting the reinforcing member 16 to the mesh 14; page 3, lines 21 - 22) which encompasses at least one of the outer and inner wall surfaces of the mesh reinforcement (Figs. 1 and 2; page 3, lines 21 - 22).
Regarding claim 21, Smart discloses a load-bearing support comprising: a containment bag (12) filled with a load-bearing material (grout), the containment bag including: an upper end portion (unlabeled top adjacent wall 22); a lower end portion (unlabeled bottom adjacent wall 20); and a sidewall (unlabeled cylindrical sidewall of bag tube 12) extending between the upper and lower end portions, the sidewall being configured for surrounding the load-bearing material within the containment bag to contain the load-bearing material therein; and a reinforcing member (16) extending along the sidewall for constraining the load-bearing material within the containment bag as a service load is applied to the load-bearing support, the reinforcing member including a flattened major surface (inner surface of strap 16) for contact with the sidewall upon application of the service load to the load-bearing support (Figs. 1 and 2; abstract; page 1, lines 18 - 19; page 3, line 2 - page 4, line 19; page 8, line 26 - page 9, line 2). Smart fails to disclose a pocket attached to the sidewall and coextending with the reinforcing member for holding the reinforcing member in contact with the sidewall, the pocket being dimensioned for supporting conformity with the reinforcing member to minimize movement of the reinforcing member with respect to the sidewall. Faulkner teaches a pocket (pocket material 24; pocket 26) attached to the sidewall (12) and coextending with the reinforcing member (wire 16) for holding the reinforcing member in contact with the sidewall, the pocket (24, 26) being dimensioned for supporting conformity with the reinforcing member (16) to minimize movement of the reinforcing member with respect to the containment bag (Figs. 4 and 5; paragraphs 0048 and 0049) to hold the reinforcing member in position along the surface of the sidewall and to prevent damage (i.e. due to tearing) to the reinforcing member. Examiner takes the position that the pocket as taught by Faulkner is configured to hold a wire therein and, although Faulkner fails to explicitly teach the reinforcing member holding the reinforcing member in contact with the sidewall, it would have been obvious to modify the size of the pocket as taught by Faulkner such that the reinforcing member is held in contact with the sidewall as a design consideration within the skill of the art since a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the pocket as taught by Faulkner to hold the reinforcing member in position along the surface of the sidewall and to prevent damage (i.e. due to tearing) to the reinforcing member.
Regarding claim 22, Smart discloses a method for forming a load-bearing support, the method comprising the steps of: providing a containment bag (12) to be filled with a load-bearing material (grout), the containment bag including: an upper end portion (unlabeled top adjacent wall 22); a lower end portion (unlabeled bottom adjacent wall 20); and a sidewall (unlabeled cylindrical sidewall of bag tube 12) extending between the upper and lower end portions, the sidewall being configured for surrounding the load-bearing material within the containment bag to contain the load-bearing material therein; positioning a reinforcing member (16) along the sidewall, the reinforcing member including a flattened major surface (inner surface of strap 16) arranged for contact with the sidewall upon application of a service load to the load-bearing support; and filling the containment bag with the load-bearing material such that the reinforcing member constrains the load-bearing material within the containment bag as the service load is applied to the load-bearing support (Figs. 1 and 2; abstract; page 1, lines 18 - 19; page 3, line 2 - page 4, line 19; page 8, line 26 - page 9, line 2). Smart fails to disclose attaching a pocket to the sidewall and coextending with the reinforcing member for holding the reinforcing member in contact with the sidewall, the pocket being dimensioned for supporting conformity with the reinforcing member to minimize movement of the reinforcing member with respect to the sidewall. Faulkner teaches attaching a pocket (pocket material 24; pocket 26) to the sidewall (12) and coextending with the reinforcing member (wire 16) for holding the reinforcing member in contact with the sidewall, the pocket (24, 26) being dimensioned for supporting conformity with the reinforcing member (16) to minimize movement of the reinforcing member with respect to the containment bag (Figs. 4 and 5; paragraphs 0048 and 0049) to hold the reinforcing member in position along the surface of the sidewall and to prevent damage (i.e. due to tearing) to the reinforcing member. Examiner takes the position that the pocket as taught by Faulkner is configured to hold a wire therein and, although Faulkner fails to explicitly teach the reinforcing member holding the reinforcing member in contact with the sidewall, it would have been obvious to modify the size of the pocket as taught by Faulkner such that the reinforcing member is held in contact with the sidewall as a design consideration within the skill of the art since a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the pocket as taught by Faulkner to hold the reinforcing member in position along the surface of the sidewall and to prevent damage (i.e. due to tearing) to the reinforcing member.
Claims 1 - 7, 18, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skarbovig (US 2011/0222970) in view of Faulkner et al.
Regarding claim 1, Skarbovig discloses a pumpable crib bag assembly arranged for forming a load- bearing support, the assembly comprising: a containment bag (grout bag 1) arranged to be filled with a load-bearing material (grout 5), the containment bag including: an upper end portion (top 3); a lower end portion (bottom 4); and a sidewall (2) extending between the upper and lower end portions, the sidewall being configured for surrounding the load-bearing material within the containment bag to contain the load-bearing material therein; and a reinforcing member (band 8) extending along the sidewall for constraining the load-bearing material within the containment bag upon application of a service load to the assembly, the reinforcing member including a flattened major surface (inner surface of webbing 15) for contact with the sidewall upon application of the service load to the assembly (Figs. 1, 2 and 4; paragraphs 0003, 0005, 0020, and 0029). Skarbovig fails to disclose attaching a pocket to the sidewall and coextending with the reinforcing member for holding the reinforcing member in contact with the sidewall, the pocket being dimensioned for supporting conformity with the reinforcing member to minimize movement of the reinforcing member with respect to the sidewall. Faulkner teaches attaching a pocket (pocket material 24; pocket 26) to the sidewall (12) and coextending with the reinforcing member (wire 16) for holding the reinforcing member in contact with the sidewall, the pocket (24, 26) being dimensioned for supporting conformity with the reinforcing member (16) to minimize movement of the reinforcing member with respect to the containment bag (Figs. 4 and 5; paragraphs 0048 and 0049) to hold the reinforcing member in position along the surface of the sidewall and to prevent damage (i.e. due to tearing) to the reinforcing member. Examiner takes the position that the pocket as taught by Faulkner is configured to hold a wire therein and, although Faulkner fails to explicitly teach the reinforcing member holding the reinforcing member in contact with the sidewall, it would have been obvious to modify the size of the pocket as taught by Faulkner such that the reinforcing member is held in contact with the sidewall as a design consideration within the skill of the art since a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the pocket as taught by Faulkner to hold the reinforcing member in position along the surface of the sidewall and to prevent damage (i.e. due to tearing) to the reinforcing member.
Regarding claim 2, Skarbovig further discloses the reinforcing member (band 8) is in a form of a strap (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Skarbovig further discloses the sidewall (2) has an inner wall surface and an outer wall surface each defining a total surface area, and wherein the strap (8) is at least partially secured to and extends along at least one of the inner and outer wall surfaces (Fig. 4; abstract; paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 4, Skarbovig further discloses the strap (band 8) has an upper edge and a lower edge, and wherein the flattened major surface extends between the upper edge and the lower edge (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Skarbovig discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the flattened major surface has a width extending between the upper edge and the lower edge such that the flattened major surface contacts about one quarter to two thirds of the total surface area of the at least one of the inner and outer wall surfaces. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the width of the flattened major surface as disclosed by Smart such that the flattened major surface contacts about one quarter to two thirds of the total surface area of the at least one of the inner and outer wall surfaces, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 6, Skarbovig discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the flattened major surface contacts about one quarter of the total surface area of the at least one of the inner and outer wall surfaces. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the width of the flattened major surface as disclosed by Smart such that the flattened major surface contacts about one quarter of the total surface area of the at least one of the inner and outer wall surfaces, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, Skarbovig further discloses the sidewall (2) is generally cylindrical in configuration (Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 18, Skarbovig further discloses a mesh reinforcement (mesh 7) positioned within the containment bag (Fig. 1; paragraphs 0003, 0005, and 0023).
Regarding claim 21, Skarbovig discloses a load-bearing support comprising: a containment bag (1) filled with a load-bearing material (5), the containment bag including: an upper end portion (3); a lower end portion (4); and a sidewall (2) extending between the upper and lower end portions, the sidewall being configured for surrounding the load-bearing material within the containment bag to contain the load-bearing material therein; and a reinforcing member (15) extending along the sidewall for constraining the load- bearing material within the containment bag as a service load is applied to the load-bearing support, the reinforcing member including a flattened major surface (inner surface of webbing 15) for contact with the sidewall upon application of the service load (Figs. 1, 2, and 4; paragraphs 0020 and 0029). Skarbovig fails to disclose attaching a pocket to the sidewall and coextending with the reinforcing member for holding the reinforcing member in contact with the sidewall, the pocket being dimensioned for supporting conformity with the reinforcing member to minimize movement of the reinforcing member with respect to the sidewall. Faulkner teaches attaching a pocket (pocket material 24; pocket 26) to the sidewall (12) and coextending with the reinforcing member (wire 16) for holding the reinforcing member in contact with the sidewall, the pocket (24, 26) being dimensioned for supporting conformity with the reinforcing member (16) to minimize movement of the reinforcing member with respect to the containment bag (Figs. 4 and 5; paragraphs 0048 and 0049) to hold the reinforcing member in position along the surface of the sidewall and to prevent damage (i.e. due to tearing) to the reinforcing member. Examiner takes the position that the pocket as taught by Faulkner is configured to hold a wire therein and, although Faulkner fails to explicitly teach the reinforcing member holding the reinforcing member in contact with the sidewall, it would have been obvious to modify the size of the pocket as taught by Faulkner such that the reinforcing member is held in contact with the sidewall as a design consideration within the skill of the art since a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the pocket as taught by Faulkner to hold the reinforcing member in position along the surface of the sidewall and to prevent damage (i.e. due to tearing) to the reinforcing member.
Regarding claim 22, Skarbovig discloses a method for forming a load-bearing support, the method comprising the steps of: providing a containment bag (1) to be filled with a load-bearing material (5), the containment bag including: an upper end portion (3); a lower end portion (4); and a sidewall (2) extending between the upper and lower end portions, the sidewall being configured for surrounding the load-bearing material within the containment bag to contain the load-bearing material therein; positioning a reinforcing member (15) along the sidewall, the reinforcing member including a flattened major surface (inner surface of webbing 15) arranged for contact with the sidewall upon application of a service load is applied to the load-bearing support; and filling the containment bag with the load-bearing material such that the reinforcing member constrains the load-bearing material within the containment bag as the service load is applied to the load-bearing support (Figs. 1, 2, and 4; paragraphs 0020 and 0029). Skarbovig fails to disclose attaching a pocket to the sidewall and coextending with the reinforcing member for holding the reinforcing member in contact with the sidewall, the pocket being dimensioned for supporting conformity with the reinforcing member to minimize movement of the reinforcing member with respect to the sidewall. Faulkner teaches attaching a pocket (pocket material 24; pocket 26) to the sidewall (12) and coextending with the reinforcing member (wire 16) for holding the reinforcing member in contact with the sidewall, the pocket (24, 26) being dimensioned for supporting conformity with the reinforcing member (16) to minimize movement of the reinforcing member with respect to the containment bag (Figs. 4 and 5; paragraphs 0048 and 0049) to hold the reinforcing member in position along the surface of the sidewall and to prevent damage (i.e. due to tearing) to the reinforcing member. Examiner takes the position that the pocket as taught by Faulkner is configured to hold a wire therein and, although Faulkner fails to explicitly teach the reinforcing member holding the reinforcing member in contact with the sidewall, it would have been obvious to modify the size of the pocket as taught by Faulkner such that the reinforcing member is held in contact with the sidewall as a design consideration within the skill of the art since a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the pocket as taught by Faulkner to hold the reinforcing member in position along the surface of the sidewall and to prevent damage (i.e. due to tearing) to the reinforcing member.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skarbovig in view of Faulkner et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Bower et al. (US 2012/0009023).
Regarding claim 14, Skarbovig discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the reinforcing member is bonded to the upper and lower portions of the of the sidewall of the containment bag. Bower teaches a reinforcing member (reinforcement retainer wire 21 encapsulated in a separated strip of fabric) is bonded to the upper and lower portions of the sidewall of the containment bag (11) (Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs 0020 and 0024). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted the bonded connection between the reinforcing member and the sidewall of the containment bag as taught by Bower for the stitching connection as taught by Skarbovig to maintain the reinforcing member in a fixed location relative to the bag along the entire length of the reinforcing member or the strap. The substitution of one known element (bonding) for another (stitching) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention. KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 82 USPQ2d 1385(2007).
Regarding claim 15, Skarbovig discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the reinforcing member is at least partially bonded to the sidewall of the containment bag along a majority of a length of the reinforcing member. Bower teaches a reinforcing member (reinforcement retainer wire 21 encapsulated in a separated strip of fabric) is at least partially bonded to the sidewall of the containment bag (11) along a majority of a length of the reinforcing member (Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs 0020 and 0024). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted the bonded connection between the reinforcing member and the sidewall of the containment bag as taught by Bower for the stitching connection as taught by Skarbovig to maintain the reinforcing member in a fixed location relative to the bag along the entire length of the reinforcing member. The substitution of one known element (bonding) for another (stitching) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention. KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 82 USPQ2d 1385(2007).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smart in view of Faulkner et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Slaughter et al. (US 2013/0121774). Smart in view of Faulkner discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the containment bag is comprised of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) laminated polyester. Slaughter teaches a containment bag (sidewall 12 of crib bag 10) comprising polyvinyl chloride (PVC) laminated polyester (paragraph 0022). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the containment bag as disclosed above with the polyvinyl chloride (PVC) laminated polyester material as taught by Slaughter, 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 for the purpose of improving the durability of the containment bag. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skarbovig in view of Faulkner et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Slaughter et al. Skarbovig in view of Faulkner discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the containment bag is comprised of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) laminated polyester. Slaughter teaches a containment bag (sidewall 12 of crib bag 10) comprising polyvinyl chloride (PVC) laminated polyester (paragraph 0022). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the containment bag as disclosed above with the polyvinyl chloride (PVC) laminated polyester material as taught by Slaughter, 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 for the purpose of improving the durability of the containment bag. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smart in view of Faulkner et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Skarbovig (US 2013/0129426; hereinafter Skarbovig '426). Smart in view of Faulkner discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except explicitly teaching the flattened major surface includes a surface profile arranged to vary a coefficient of friction between the reinforcing member or the strap and the sidewall. Skarbovig '426 teaches the flattened major surface (surface of rings 20, 21, 22) includes a surface profile arranged to vary a coefficient of friction (via use of collars 23 that provide a predetermined swagging force to create a predetermined frictional resistance to movement) between the reinforcing member or the strap and the sidewall (Fig. 7; paragraphs 0022 and 0038). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the flattened major surface including a surface profile as disclosed above with the collars as taught by Skarbovig '426 to provide a predetermined swagging force, thereby creating a predetermined frictional resistance to movement between the reinforcing member or the strap and the sidewall.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skarbovig in view of Faulkner et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Skarbovig (US 2013/0129426; hereinafter Skarbovig '426). Skarbovig in view of Faulkner discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except explicitly teaching the flattened major surface includes a surface profile arranged to vary a coefficient of friction between the reinforcing member or the strap and the sidewall. Skarbovig '426 teaches the flattened major surface (surface of rings 20, 21, 22) includes a surface profile arranged to vary a coefficient of friction (via use of collars 23 that provide a predetermined swagging force to create a predetermined frictional resistance to movement) between the reinforcing member or the strap and the sidewall (Fig. 7; paragraphs 0022 and 0038). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the flattened major surface including a surface profile as disclosed above with the collars as taught by Skarbovig '426 to provide a predetermined swagging force, thereby creating a predetermined frictional resistance to movement between the reinforcing member or the strap and the sidewall.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 - 11 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 filed 13 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that none of the cited prior art teaches a pocket as recited in the claims. Examiner replies that Faulkner teaches the claimed pocket (Figs. 4 and 5; paragraphs 0048 and 0049), as discussed above, to hold the reinforcing member or the strap in position along the surface of the sidewall and to prevent damage (i.e. due to tearing) to the reinforcing member. Examiner takes the position that the pocket as taught by Faulkner is configured to hold a wire therein and, although Faulkner fails to explicitly teach the reinforcing member holding the reinforcing member in contact with the sidewall, it would have been obvious to modify the size of the pocket as taught by Faulkner such that the reinforcing member is held in contact with the sidewall as a design consideration within the skill of the art since a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the pocket as taught by Faulkner to hold the reinforcing member in position along the surface of the sidewall and to prevent damage (i.e. due to tearing) to the reinforcing member.
Applicant argues that the pocket as taught by Faulkner (US 2022/0090501) is oversized compared to the wire such that the wire is free to move within the pocket. Examiner takes the position that the pocket as taught by Faulkner is configured to hold a wire therein and, although Faulkner fails to explicitly teach the reinforcing member holding the reinforcing member in contact with the sidewall, it would have been obvious to modify the size of the pocket as taught by Faulkner such that the reinforcing member is held in contact with the sidewall as a design consideration within the skill of the art since a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Applicant argues that Faulkner necessitates that there be radial expansion of the body 12, which has been interpreted by Examiner as the reinforcing member, and therefore Faulkner fails to disclose the pocket as claimed. Examiner replies that the pocket as taught by Faulkner comprises a fabric material and it is well known that fabric is deformable. Therefore, the pocket as taught by Faulkner is capable of being deformed during the radial stretching of the body 12. Since the fabric pocket as taught by Faulkner is deformable, it would have been considered obvious to modify the shape of the pocket such that it holds the body 12 in contact with the sidewall as a design consideration within the skill of the art to hold the reinforcing member in position along the surface of the sidewall and to prevent damage (i.e. due to tearing) to the reinforcing member.
Applicant argues that since Smart teaches hoop ties to have predictable load bearing characteristics, the person of ordinary skill in the art has no reason to seek a solution to a problem that has already been solved. Examiner replies that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to have substituted the pocket as taught by Faulkner for the hoop ties as disclosed by Smart to provide a uniform amount of structural support along the length of the reinforcing member (as opposed to the structural support provided by hoop ties at specific locations).
Applicant argues that the cited prior art fails to teach modifying the surface profile of the reinforcing member to deliberately vary friction within a pocket-retained reinforcement system. Examiner replies that claim 20 does not require modifying the surface profile to “deliberately vary friction”. Examiner notes that Skarbovig teaches using spaced collars (23) to provide a predetermined frictional resistance to movement (paragraphs 0022 and 0038).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SEAN D ANDRISH whose telephone number is (571)270-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 AM - 4:00 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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/SEAN D ANDRISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SA
8/10/2026
Prosecution Insights