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 .
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed 10/7/25. Accordingly the application has been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/7/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Song does not disclose a prestressed structurally stable defense system capable of resisting loads, cutouts of a fine net attached to a course net. Applicant further asserts the Office Actin fails to provide how Song anticipates the course net and fine net and cutout features where at best the office cites cables 2,21,20,22,23. Further Applicant asserts Song does not disclose a 3dimensional doubly curved course net with a grid like structure with longitudinal and latitudinal cables at marked precalculated intersecting points. This is not persuasive.
The Office Action clearly indicates the fine net cutouts of Song are metal net 3 and the course net including longitudinal cables 20 and latitudinal cables 21 and 23. Further at col 5 of Song it is discloses that the cables are tensioned by the posts 11 and 12 and they intersect and connect to metal net 3. They are considered to be prestressed for at least they reason that are tensioned in connection between the posts and by carrying the load of net 3. Further col. 5 at line 49 states that the barrier is under tension after being impacted and therefore discloses that it can resist loads. As seen in the figures the net of Song is a 3-dimensional double curved course net in the same way as applicants, in that it looks like a hyperbolic paraboloid, as described by applicant in the remarks.
Applicant’s arguments regarding “prestressed structural stable defense system” are not persuasive. Applicant indicates in the remarks filed 10/7/25 that the specification provides for prestressing via tensioning of the cables during erection of the net structure (paragraph 0166 of the specification). The structure of Song similarly provides prestressing via tensioning of the cables through the erection of the columns and supports/anchors. The structure of Song is considered to be structurally stable for at least the reason that it remains upright after assembly and it is capable of resisting loads as noted above and disclosed in Song.
Applicant’s arguments that the longitudinal and latitudinal course cables of Song do not intersect at marked precalculated intersecting points to form a plurality of course cells is not persuasive. The precalculated intersection points are a result of the design of the length of the cables and height and placement of the supports/anchors. Thus they do intersect at precalculated points and are considered to be marked by the location of the attachment points to the supports/anchors.
Thus applicants arguments are not persuasive to overcome Song.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of copending Application No. 18145716 in view of WO2009107104. Copending application 18145716 claims the same combined net structure as the instant application, as seen in the claims where the claims are substantially the same, however copending application 18145716 does not expressly claim the combined net structure is attached to at least one support or that the one or more additional combined net structures comprise a non-planar coarse net with a grid-like structure comprising a plurality of coarse cables wherein longitudinal coarse cables intersect with latitudinal coarse cables to form a plurality of coarse cells; cutouts of a fine net attached to said coarse net, wherein said fine net comprises a plurality of adjacent fine cables; wherein each non-edge fine cable is attached to two adjacent fine cables on each of its sides at a plurality of locations along their lengths forming attachment points, wherein said fine net is arranged in a form of an array of fine quadrangular cells with said attachment points constituting the vertices of said fine quadrangular cells; wherein the one or more additional combined net structures are attached to the column and to the plurality of anchors.
Regarding claim 1 it is known in the art to have a combined net structure attached to at least one support. For example WO2009107104 discloses a combined net structure having the same claimed components as the presently pending claim 1 (see rejection below) and further attached to at least one support (6/16). Accordingly it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to pursue known design options and modify the claimed structure of copending application 18145716 to be attached to at least one support to achieve the predictable result of a combined net structure fixed into a desired position to achieve a desired protection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-8,13-16,27-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Song et al (11015309).
Claim 1. Song discloses a protective cable net prestressed structurally stable defense system , against munitions and drones, , the system comprising:
a combined net structure comprising:
a 3-dimensional double curved (see figures 1,3 where it is 3-dimensional and double curved) coarse net (comprised of 2,21,20,22,23) with a grid-like structure comprising a plurality of coarse cables (each individual cable as noted in the disclosure) wherein longitudinal coarse cables intersect with latitudinal coarse cables at marked precalculated intersection points (where the points of intersection are calculated prior to assembly, thus they are precalculated) to form a plurality of coarse cells (as seen in the figures and noted in the disclosure; as seen in at least figures 2,3,6);
cutouts of a fine net (3) attached to said coarse net, wherein said fine net comprises a plurality of adjacent fine cables (as seen in the figures and noted in the disclosure);
wherein each fine cable is attached to two adjacent fine cables on each of its sides at a plurality of locations along their lengths forming attachment points, wherein said fine net is arranged in a form of an array of fine quadrangular cells with said attachment points constituting the vertices of said fine quadrangular cells (as seen in at least figure 1, where the fine net is arranged in quadrangular cells formed by the course cable and attached at vertices of the cells where it is attached to the course cable); and
supports comprising:
at least one column (1) with a plurality of anchors as supports (4 or the post foundation [0040] and/or any or all of 6,11,12), wherein the combined net structure being quadrangular is attached at its vertices to said at least one column and anchors to form a prestressed structurally stable defense system capable of resisting loads; and
a multiple nets system (where there are plural/additional posts 11 and 12 forming plural/additional combined net structures),
wherein the combined net structure is attached to the supports (as seen in the figures and noted in the disclosure).
Claim 2. The protective cable net prestressed structurally stable defense system of claim 1, wherein each fine net cutout of the combined net structure is coextensive in shape with one or more coarse cells of the plurality of coarse cells (as seen in the figures, where they are coextensive within the shape).
Claim 3. The protective cable net prestressed structurally stable defense system of claim 1, wherein all of the plurality of coarse cells of the combined net structure are attached to at least one cutout fine net of the cutouts of the fine net cutouts (as seen in at least figures 1-2 and [0041]).
Claim 4. T The protective cable net prestressed structurally stable defense system of claim 1, wherein the cutouts of the fine net of the combined net structure are connected to the coarse net such that portions of a fine cable of the plurality of adjacent fine cables of said cutouts of the fine net cutouts are attached to corresponding portions of a coarse cable of the plurality of coarse cables of the coarse net by means of connecting elements that hold said fine cable and said coarse cable together (where it is disclosed they are connected [0041]).
Claim 5. The protective cable net prestressed structurally stable defense system of claim 1, wherein the coarse net of the combined net structure has connecting elements (11/12 [0041] where it is disclosed that they are connected) that connect the intersecting longitudinal coarse cables with the latitudinal coarse cables at the intersecting points.
Claim 6. The protective cable net prestressed structurally stable defense system of claim 1, wherein the fine quadrangular cells of the combined net structure are square or rhombic cells (as seen in the figures, where each cell is within a square or rhombic course cell).
Claim 7. The protective cable net prestressed structurally stable defense system of claim 1, wherein the distances between two adjacent attachment points of two adjacent fine cables are the same; and wherein an imaginary line which bisects and is perpendicular to the imaginary line connecting two adjacent attachment points of two adjacent fine cables passes through an attachment point of one of said two adjacent fine cables with its other adjacent fine cable (as seen in figure 1).
Claim 8. The protective cable net prestressed structurally stable defense system of claim 1, wherein the combined net structure has one or more edge cables attached to the perimeter of the coarse net (as seen in the figures and noted at least at [0041]).
Claim 13. The protective cable net prestressed structurally stable defense system of claim 1, wherein the longitudinal coarse cables and the latitudinal coarse cables of the combined net structure have predetermined lengths, and are attached to each other at pre-calculated locations marked along their lengths (as noted in the figures and disclosure).
Claim 14. The protective cable net prestressed structurally stable defense system of claim 13, wherein the predetermined lengths are such that the coarse net formed comprises a 3-dimensional structure with a double curvature (as seen in the figures).
Claim 15. The protective cable net prestressed structurally stable defense system of claim 6, wherein an imaginary line connecting two adjacent attachment points of two adjacent non-edge fine cables of the plurality of adjacent fine cables is parallel to the longitudinal coarse cables or to the latitudinal coarse cables (as seen in the figures).
Claim 16. The protective cable net prestressed structurally stable defense system of claim 1 comprising: the combined net structure, wherein the columns are height adjustable (where it can be disposed in the ground at varying depths adjusting the height of the column above the ground).
Claim 27. The protective cable net prestressed structurally stable defense system of claim 1, wherein the system belongs to a category of tensile structures (where it includes tensioned cables and therefore belongs to a category of tensile structures).
Claim 28. The protective cable net prestressed structurally stable defense system of claim 1, wherein the system is prestressed structurally stable (as noted above and also where the cables are tensioned and therefore prestressed during the installation by connection to the column and supports and is structurally stable in that it is stable when erected).
Claim 29. The protective cable net prestressed structurally stable defense system of claim 1, wherein the system initiates munitions using frontal super quick (SQ) fuses or a first fuse of double sequential warheads (where it is capable of the claimed intended use. It is noted a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, there is no structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art of Song as noted above and therefore Song is capable of performing the claimed intended use.
Claim 30. The protective cable net prestressed structurally stable defense system of claim 1, wherein the system is modular (where it is composed of individual modular components assembled together to form the whole) and the at least one column is a winch-erected column. It should be noted that claim 30 is considered a product-by-process claim. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See MPEP 2113. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed.Cir.1985). Accordingly, the column of Song is capable of being a winch-erected column, the column of Song is structurally the same the column of applicants claimed invention and therefore anticipates the claimed invention.
Claim 31. The protective cable net prestressed structurally stable defense system of claim 1, wherein the system is configured to capture a drone at a distance from a required zone (where it is capable of the claimed intended use, the net being capable of capturing a drone at a distance from a required zone).
Claim 32. The protective cable net prestressed structurally stable defense system of claim 1, wherein the system is configured to provide redundancy (where there are two nets a course (including 20,21,23) and a fine (3), thus providing redundancy).
Claim 33. The protective cable net prestressed structurally stable defense system of claim 1, wherein the system is configured to sustain multiple munition impacts without collapse (where it is capable of the claimed intended use).
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) 12,17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al (11015309) in view of WO2009107104.
Claims 9-12. Song discloses the combined net structure according to claims 1,6,8 as above, but does not expressly disclose:
wherein the diameter of one or more edge cables is between 15mm and 25mm;
wherein the diameter of the coarse cables of the combined net structure is between 5mm and 10mm;
wherein the diameter of the fine cables of the combined net structure sis between 5mm and 10mm; or
wherein the square or rhombic cell diagonals are between 20mm and 50mm.
However it is known in the art to have specified cable diameters for specified purposes. For example, WO2009107104 discloses that the course and fine net parameters may be modified to meet the various installation conditions (see pages 9-12). Accordingly it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize routine engineering and pursue known design options and modify an edge cable to be 15-25mm, the coarse cables to be 5-10mm, the fine cables to be 5-10mm and the cells to be rhombic diagonals with the dimensions of the cell diagonals between 20mm and 50mm to have a sufficient strength to meet the load requirements of the installation conditions. Thus it would have been obvious to modify the protective cable net system of Song to achieve the predictable result of a combined net structure with sufficient tensile strength to withstand the calculated load and prevent falling. Further it is noted that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would have readily recognized that the dimensions could have been changed since it has been held that changes in sizes or proportions are obvious absent any unpredictable results 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). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that dimensioning the elements as claimed would result in a desired strength to achieve the intended purpose as noted in applicants specification at least at paragraph 0006 and 0126).
Claim 17. Song discloses the protective cable net prestressed structurally stable defense system of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose that the anchors are concrete blocks.
However Song does disclose that the anchors are foundations or as shown at 6. It is known to use concrete as a foundation material, additionally WO2009107104 does disclose that the anchors 6 are fixed in place using fixing materials such as grouting material. Accordingly it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to pursue known design options and modify the foundation of Song and the anchors to be secured in concrete as taught in WO2009107104 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 as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In the instant case it would have been obvious for at least the reason of concrete is structurally suitable to anchor rods into a slope with sufficient strength to prevent undesired removal. Accordingly, the grouting material would form a concrete block fixing the anchor 6 in place.
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 JESSICA LAUX whose telephone number is (571)272-8228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at 571.270.3238. 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.
JESSICA L. LAUX
Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JESSICA L LAUX/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635