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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 6/23/26 has been entered. Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the (Specification, Drawings, and Claims) have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 3/26/26.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 10 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
The status identifier for Claim 10 is incorrect and should have read (Currently Amended); as a courtesy, the claims are prosecuted on the merits; however, future issues may warrant a notice of non-compliance; any future objections/rejections that are a result of improper amendment annotations will not be considered new objections/rejections
Claim 10 Line 3 after “wherein” add –in--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Specific Definitions
Claim 8 “substantially” is defined in the specification page 32 Lines 2-4 to be “80 wt% or more”.
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) 1, 2, 4-8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH 0353597 (NPL: USPTO STIC translation), herein JP, in view of Payen (USPN 4126499) and RTL (NPL).
Regarding Claim 1, JP teaches a double rope structure (see Fig. 1; page 1 "rope having a two-layer structure") comprising
an inner core (see Fig. 1; page 1 "core is made of aromatic polyamide fiber") and
an outer cover (see Fig. 1; page 1 "outer layer is made of polyamide fiber"; see page 3 "materials for the outer layer are…nylon-6"),
wherein a represents a diameter of an outer periphery of the inner core (see Fig. 1; page 8 “core diameter 5 mm”)
b represents a diameter of an outer periphery of the outer cover (see Fig. 1; page 8 “outer diameter of 10 mm”).
JP at least suggests wherein the inner core comprises high strength and high modulus fibers (page 1 "core is made of aromatic polyamide fiber"),
but does not explicitly teach the inner core with a yarn tenacity of 20 cN/dtex or more and
with a yarn elastic modulus of 400 cN/dtex or more.
Nevertheless, Payen teaches an inner core is made of aromatic polyamide of Kevlar 29 (Col. 2 Lines 57-59 "covering yarn may comprise thermoplastic polymers such as Nylon-6"; Col. 2 Lines 35-53 "core yarn …displaying good breaking strength and high heat resistance…particularly effective core yarn is…aromatic polyamides displaying a high base modulus such as...poly-(p-phenylene-terephthalamide) marketed by E. I. Dupont de Nemours under the trademark "KEVLAR"", otherwise known as a para-aramid (see extrinsic evidence Hardee et al USPN 8074436); Col. 4 Lines 45-48 "core yarn -- a yarn of a heat-stable aromatic polyamide, based on poly-(p-phenylene-terephthalamide), such as sold by E. I. Dupont de Nemours under the trademark "KEVLAR", Type 29").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify JP’s aromatic polyamide to be Kevlar 29 as taught by Payen for the properties exhibited depending on the application (Col. 2 Lines 35-53), especially being in the same art of endeavor as a core material.
As such, modified JP teaches wherein the wherein the inner core comprises high strength and high modulus fibers (met by the aramid, especially as indicated by applicant specification page 3 Line 29-page 4 Line 2),
with a yarn tenacity of 20 cN/dtex or more (wherein it is known in the art that Kevlar 29 meets the recitation, see extrinsic evidence Technical Guide NPL, Table II, wherein breaking tenacity is 203 cN/dtex, which extrinsic evidence Service Thread NPL helps calculate to be 20.3 cN/dtex) and
with a yarn elastic modulus of 400 cN/dtex or more (wherein it is known in the art that Kevlar 29 meets the recitation, see extrinsic evidence Technical Guide NPL, Table II, for tensile modulus of 4900 cN/tex, which extrinsic evidence Service Thread NPL helps calculate to be 490 cN/dtex).
JP further does not explicitly teach an inner-and-outer-layer suitability represented by the following formula (1) is 0.8 to 1.20
(a2/b2)/Vf x 100 (1)
and Vf represents a volume ratio (%) of a volume of the inner core to a total volume of the inner core and the outer cover.
However, RTL teaches nylon-6 with a density of 1.14 (see NPL).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify JP’s nylon-6 to be that of RTL based on availability, and known as a covering (see NPL).
As such, modified JP teaches an inner-and-outer-layer suitability represented by the formula (1) is 0.8 to 1.20. Specifically--
as applicant specification page 7 Lines 18-19 indicates individual volume can be calculated by weight/density, but one of ordinary skill understands that calculating individually volume geometrically is an equivalent approach, then utilizing the generic geometric equation for volume of a cylindrical yarn:
inner-core volume: (2.52)/1.44 = 4.34
outer-layer volume: (52 – 2.52)/1.14 = 16.45
such that Vf = [4.34/(4.34+16.45)] = 0.21 x 100
wherein modified JP teaches that the inner core has a density of 1.44 (it is known in the art that the Kevlar 29 of Payen has a density of 1.44, see extrinsic evidence Technical NPL).
such that the formula (1) results in [(52/102)/(0.21*100)] * 100 = 1.19.
Regarding Claim 2, modified JP teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified JP further teaches wherein the volume ratio Vf of the volume of the inner core to the total volume of the inner core and the outer cover is 10% or larger (see rejection of Claim 1, wherein Vf is 0.21 * 100, and therefore 21%).
Regarding Claim 4, modified JP teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified JP at least suggests wherein a tensile strength per cross-sectional area of the double rope structure is 180 N/mm2 or more (modified JP teaches the structure of the double rope structure which meets the structural limitations in the claims; as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure the tensile strength per cross-sectional area and get the recited range. Even if the range measured did not overlap but was merely close, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists. See MPEP 2144.05, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)),
the tensile strength being measured in accordance with JIS L 1013:2021 (it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure according to the recited standard to ensure compliance against a well known standard; furthermore, with regards to requirements of testing against the specific standards of JIS L 1013:2021, it is the position of the Office that the claimed resultant properties as desired in the aforesaid claims, would be inherent if not obvious to the structure of modified JP. It is reasonable to presume so, as support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials (i.e. the structure of modified JP). The burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties as set forth above, it would obviously have been present once the product of modified Katsuya is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote (CCPA 1977) as to the providing of this rejection made above under 35 USC 102. Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though rejection is based on Section 103 instead of Section 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80).
Regarding Claim 5, modified JP teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified JP further teaches wherein the high strength and high modulus fibers have a yarn elongation of 1 to 6% (Payen teaches the Kevlar 29, which is known in the art to have an elongation of 3.6%, see extrinsic evidence Technical NPL).
Regarding Claim 6, modified JP teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified JP further teaches wherein the high strength and high modulus fibers are at least one selected from the group consisting of liquid crystal polyester fibers, ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene fibers, aramid fibers ,and poly (para-phenylene benzobisoxazole) fibers (Payen teaches the Kevlar 29, which is known in the art as aramid, see extrinsic evidence Hardee et al USPN 8074436).
Regarding Claim 7, modified JP teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified JP further teaches wherein a ratio of a tenacity of fibers used for the outer cover to a tenacity of fibers used for the inner core is 0.1 to 0.4 (Payen teaches the Kevlar 29, which is known in the art to have a tenacity of 20.3 cN/dtex as indicated in the rejection of claim 1; RTL further teaches the tenacity of nylon 6 as 8.3 g/d, which is 7.3 cN/dtex, see extrinsic evidence Minifibers NPL; as such, the ratio is 7.3/20.3 = 0.36).
Regarding Claim 8, modified JP teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
JP further teaches wherein the outer cover substantially comprises non-high strength and non-high modulus fibers (see claim interpretation; outer cover is polyamide nylon -6 which applicant specification on page 22 Lines 24-27 indicates as being non-high strength and non-high modulus; outer cover is also only of polyamide nylon-6 which meets the definition of “substantially” at 100 wt%; for fibers—see page 8 “outer layer is made of fibers”).
Regarding Claim 10, modified JP teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
JP at least suggests wherein a ratio of a tensile strength of the double rope structure after a bending test to a tensile strength of the double rope structure before the bending test is 90% or more (modified JP teaches the structure of the double rope structure which meets the structural limitations in the claims; as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure the ratio of the tensile strength after and before a bending test and get the recited range. Even if the range measured did not overlap but was merely close, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists. See MPEP 2144.05, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)),
wherein the bending test, the double rope structure is subjected to repeated bending of 10,000 times under a load of 1% of a tensile break strength of the double rope structure at a bending angle of 240° with a bending R of 7.5 mm (modified JP teaches the structure of the double rope structure which meets the structural limitations in the claims; as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure the ratio of the tensile strength after and before a bending test as outlined and get the recited range. Even if the range measured did not overlap but was merely close, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists. See MPEP 2144.05, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985), wherein the rope is capable of having the functions performed upon itself as recited).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH 0353597 (NPL: USPTO STIC translation), herein JP, in view of Payen (USPN 4126499) and RTL (NPL), further in view of Johnson et al (USPN 7093416), herein Johnson.
Regarding Claim 3, modified JP teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
JP does not explicitly teach wherein the double rope structure has a ratio of yarn length/rope length of 1.005 or more and 1.400 or less,
the rope length being determined as a length of a cut section of the double rope structure cut to a certain length,
the yarn length being determined as an average value of lengths of yarns constituting the inner core of the cut section.
However, JP teaches a power cable (page 1 "invention relates to a high-tensile rope for cable pulling…for example, power, communication…)"; see Fig. 1; page 1 "core is made of aromatic polyamide fiber").
However, Johnson teaches wherein the double rope structure has a ratio of yarn length/rope length of 1.005 or more and 1.400 or less (abstract "embodiments of the cable are useful, for example, as an overhead power transmission line"; Col. 4 Lines 7-9 "boron fibers…have a length on the order of at least 50 meters"; Col. 3 Line 16 "cable 30 includes core 32 and stranded...wires 34"; Col. 3 Lines 26-27 "examples of materials comprising the core include aramid...boron", wherein, in light of the rope length/yarn length values below, results in 50/49 = 1.02),
the rope length being determined as a length of a cut section of the double rope structure cut to a certain length (wherein certain length is 49 meters),
the yarn length being determined as an average value of lengths of yarns constituting the inner core of the cut section (see Fig. 7, where core/sheath are coextensive and therefore the yarn length is 50 meters as recited by Col. 4 Lines 7-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify JP’s length to be that of Johnson’s as a known length for a power cable, which JP is as well.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH 0353597 (NPL: USPTO STIC translation), herein JP, in view of Payen (USPN 4126499) and RTL (NPL), further in view of Kusudo et al (USPN 11377763), herein Kusudo.
Regarding Claim 9, modified JP teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
JP does not explicitly teach wherein the outer cover comprises multifilaments.
JP does teach braiding polyamide (page 5 "outer layer 2 has a structure in which polyamide fibers such as nylon-6 are twisted into a braided or twisted type, and covers and protects the core 1").
Kusudo teaches wherein the outer cover of polyamide comprises multifilaments (Col. 21 Lines 47-52 "braid of Example 1 is shown in Fig. 1a…multi-filaments of the core part are covered with multi-filaments at the sheath part where a braid-like structure is formed"; Col. 13 Lines 16-17 "the 'sheath part' of the braid of the present embodiment comprises a …synthetic fiber (b)"; Col. 13 Lines 54-56 "the synthetic fiber (b)' preferably comprises …polyamide").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify JP’s outer cover to be of multifilaments as taught by Kusudo for strength and/or for easy manufacturing (see extrinsic evidence Nelis et al US Publication 2013/0205979).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. Therefore, see aforementioned rejections for the argued missing limitations.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Grace Huang whose telephone number is (571)270-5969. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am-5:30pm EST.
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, Khoa Huynh can be reached on 571-272-4888. 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.
/GRACE HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights