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 .
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 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) 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9416469 (Woodruff) in view of US 5413149 (Ford et al.).
Regarding claim 12, ‘469 discloses: A textile sleeve for routing and protecting an elongate member [textile sleeve in fig. 1 is capable of stated function to provide routing and protection of an elongate member; it is noted that this statement of intended use in the preamble of the claim has no patentable weight], comprising:
a textile wall having an inner surface and an opposite outer surface extending lengthwise along a central longitudinal axis between opposite ends [inherently and explicitly shown/disclosed in/by sleeve 10, fig. 1], said inner surface being configured to bound a cavity sized for receipt of the elongate member [inherently and explicitly shown/disclosed in/by sleeve 10, fig. 1],
said textile wall being formed of first monofilaments and second monofilaments interlaced with one another [textile sleeves in figs. 2a and 3a both disclose only monofilaments in both the warp and weft directions; fully disclosing 1st and 2nd monofilaments interlaced with each other], and
wherein said first monofilaments have a first diameter and said second monofilaments have a second diameter, said second diameter being greater than said first diameter [par. 14 states explicitly, “The monofilaments 24 preferably have a reduced cross-section area (reduced diameter) relative to the warp yarns 23, which facilitates providing the sleeve 10 with an increased degree of flexibility in comparison to that if the monofilaments were larger.” And par. 15 states explicitly “The monofilaments used for the warp yarns 23′ are at least slightly greater in diameter than the monofilaments used for the fill yarns 24′.”].
‘469 does further teach the warp and weft/first and second monofilament can be any desired polymeric material including polyester homopolymer in par. 14.
The limitations of claim 12 not disclosed by ‘469 are that the 2nd/fill monofilament is a copolymer material, said copolymer material including resin material with excellent sliding characteristics.
The ‘149 Ford reference does teach explicitly, “It will be appreciated that filamentary material other than the resiliently settable material described above may be included with advantage in the shaped fabrics of the present invention. For example, it may be beneficial to include filaments comprised of fluorocarbon polymer resin to impart low friction characteristics to the shaped products. Moreover, combinations of engineering plastic materials and yarns or strands or filaments comprised of metals or mineral materials may be used. Thus, it is contemplated that the present fabrics may comprise, in addition to the resiliently settable filaments hereof, other natural and synthetic filaments which contribute but do not detract from the properties of the present shaped products [par. 13].”.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing the invention to modify the homopolymer polyester monofilament of ‘469 to include low friction polymer resins which would inherently result in a copolymer monofilament with lowered frictional characteristics. Lower frictional characteristics equate to enhanced surface smoothness or sliding capability which also inherently results in enhanced ability of items within the textile sleeve to ‘slide’ within the textile sleeve for insertion/removal/abrasion protection of the item within the sleeve.
Regarding claim 13, ‘469 discloses: first monofilaments are PET or PA [‘469 discloses all warp and weft/1st and 2nd monofilaments as polyester/PET].
Regarding claim 14, ‘469 in view of ‘149 does not teach any specific compositional ranges of the amount of polyester in the low friction modified copolymer monofilament.
However, the MPEP is clear:
Changes in Size/Proportion
In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Since no recitation of different/unexpected/critical performance is present in the instant specification regarding the claimed proportion of polyester in the copolymer is not considered to be a patentably distinct limitation.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to filing the invention to modify the amount of polyester in a copolymer of the combined teachings cited above through conventional engineering design choice to arrive at a copolymer monofilament having the desired proportion of polyester in the copolymer monofilament for a desired end use application.
Regarding claim 15, ‘469 discloses: wherein said first monofilaments and said second monofilaments extend generally parallel to the central longitudinal axis as warp yarns and wherein said first monofilaments and said second monofilaments extend generally transverse to the to the central longitudinal axis as weft yarn [see annotated figures 1 and 2a below].
PNG
media_image1.png
534
921
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
363
792
media_image2.png
Greyscale
‘469 ivo ‘149 does not explicitly teach the 2nd or larger diameter monofilaments as located in the transverse direction to the central longitudinal axis.
However, ‘469 does explicitly teach, “The monofilaments 24 preferably have a reduced cross-section area (reduced diameter) relative to the warp yarns 23, which facilitates providing the sleeve 10 with an increased degree of flexibility in comparison to that if the monofilaments were larger [par. 14].”.
This teaching makes clear that the ‘469 reference clearly recognizes that the variation of the diameter of warp yarns to the diameter of weft yarns results in a predictable variable optimization of flexibility characteristics of the sleeve. It follows that variation of warp yarn to weft yarn diameter in either of the directions of a textile will result in variation of the flexibility characteristics of the sleeve when warp and weft yarn diameters are different from each other, i.e. one being larger than the other causes a variation in flexibility characteristics.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing the invention to modify a textile sleeve to have warp and weft monofilament yarns of different diameters to each other in either of the longitudinal or transverse axial directions of the sleeve to arrive at a textile sleeve with the desired flexibility characteristics for a desired end use application.
Regarding claim 16, ‘469 discloses first and second monofilaments interlaced with each other but does not teach the resulting interlacing as ‘braided’ per claim 16.
However, ‘149 does explicitly teach, “The present invention is directed to shaped products, and more particularly to shaped fabric products. As the term is used herein, "fabric" refers to any material comprised of interlaced filamentary components. As will be appreciated by those skilled in the art, many classes of fabric material exist, and it is contemplated that all such materials may be adaptable for use in connection with the present invention. In particular, it is contemplated that the shaped fabric products may comprise knitted products, braided products or woven products…[par.2].”.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing the invention to modify the interlaced textile of ‘469 to a ‘braided textile’ since the prior art fully recognizes that the many classes of fabric (interlaced textile) materials are capable of use as a textile sleeve, including knitted, woven and braided textiles.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 and 17-20 are allowed.
Independent claims 1, 17, and the respective depending claims are allowed because they require novel, non-obvious textile sleeve construction, arrangement and composition.
More specifically, claims 1 and 17 both require: a textile sleeve with inner surface and outer surface extending lengthwise along a central longitudinal axis between opposite ends; inner surface configured to bound a cavity for receipt of an elongate member; first and second monofilaments interlaced with one another; first monofilament composed of a homopolymer and the second monofilament composed of a copolymer including 5-40% by weight of resin material with excellent sliding characteristics.
The prior art does not teach these specific combination of structural and compositional limitations. Further, the recited monofilament arrangement in combination of the specifically claimed range of excellent sliding resin composition of the second monofilament are noted in the specification as providing a textile sleeve with the capability of protect interiorly placed elongate members while also providing protection against abrading the interiorly place elongate members.
There are textile sleeves in the prior art including US 941649 which include some similar structural limitations and polyester monofilaments in warp and weft directions with different diameters for varying the flexibility of the sleeve as desired.
US 941649 does not teach the specifics of the monofilaments in warp and weft direction in combination with specific compositional homopolymer and copolymer requirements of the monofilaments for affecting the frictional/sliding characteristics of a textile sleeve so that the sleeve provides added abrasion protection to interiorly held elongate elements.
Further attached prior art does teach the use of various low friction polymer additives for affecting frictional characteristics of a device but they do not teach the specifics of the instant claims as noted above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Various textile and low friction polymer references are attached to establish the general state of the prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT H MUROMOTO JR whose telephone number is (571)272-4991. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 730-1730.
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, Alissa Tompkins can be reached at 571-272-3425. 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.
/ROBERT H MUROMOTO JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732