DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “bare wire portions adjacent the ends create a gap in a remaining portion of the flat wire coating left after removing the flat wire coating from the first end and the second end of the wire” from claims 1 and 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, and 3-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein, in the completed shape, the bare wire portions adjacent the ends create a gap in a remaining portion of the flat wire coating left after removing the flat wire coating from the first end and the second end of the wire”, which is considered new matter. Nowhere in the disclosure is this described.
Dependent claims are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In claim 11, the limitations “wherein in the completed shape, the bare wire portions adjacent the ends create a gap in a remaining portion of the flat wire coating left after removing the flat wire coating from the first end and the second end of the wire, and wherein the heat shrink tube spans across the gap”, are already found in lines 11-17 of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1, and 3-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altieri (US 20140290873) in view of Fukaya (CN104733881A, translation provided by examiner).
Regarding claim 1, Altieri teaches a method of manufacturing a flexible screen frame having a frame (fig. 1) with a shape and a screening mesh having a screening mesh coating (as described in paragraph 35), the frame further constructed from a flat wire (paragraph 30), the method comprising:
bending the flat wire to match the shape of the screen frame (paragraph 41 teaches the wire being a single piece of material and being connected in one spot, thus it inherently teaches this step of bending); the flat wire extending from a first end to a second end (the two ends welded together per paragraph 41);
positioning the first end adjacent to the second end (this is done in order to weld the ends together);
welding the ends together at a weld point to complete the shape (paragraph 41);
bonding the screening mesh coating to the screen frame (melting as described in paragraph 34).
Altieri does not teach the flat wire precoated with a flat wire coating, wherein the flat wire is precoated with the flat wire coating prior to the bending, nor the steps of removing the flat wire coating from the first end and the second end to create bare wire portions adjacent the ends, wherein in the completed shape, the bare wire portions adjacent the ends create a gap in a remaining portion of the flat wire coating left after removing the flat wire coating from the first end and the second end of the wire, sliding a shrink tube onto the flat wire and moving it away from the ends, positioning the shrink tube over the bare wire portions and the weld point, heating the shrink tube to cause it to seal to the flat wire and fully cover the bare wire portions and the weld point, wherein the heat shrink tube spans across the gap, nor the screening mesh coating bonding to the flat wire coating and the shrink tube.
Fukaya teaches a wire having a wire coating (14, paragraph 25) prior to any bending, and the steps of removing the coating from end to create a bare wire portion adjacent the end (paragraph 30), sliding a shrink tube onto the wire and moving it away from the ends (paragraph 30), positioning the shrink tube over the bare wire portions and a weld point (solder point, paragraph 34), wherein, the bare wire portion adjacent the end create a gap in a remaining portion of the flat wire coating left (coating still remains on most of the wire, the stripped portion is this gap) after removing the flat wire coating from the end, and heating the shrink tube to cause it to seal to the wire (paragraph 35) and cover the bare wire portions and weld point (paragraph 35), wherein the heat shrink tube spans across the gap (it covers the gap).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonably expectation of success to modify Altieri so the flat wire of Altieri is precoated with a flat wire coating (it now being called a flat wire coating) prior to any bending, and by adding the steps of removing the flat wire coating from the first end and the second end to create bare wire portions adjacent the ends, wherein in the completed shape, the bare wire portions adjacent the ends create a gap in a remaining portion of the flat wire coating left after removing the flat wire coating from the first end and the second end of the wire, sliding a shrink tube onto the flat wire and moving it away from the ends, positioning the shrink tube over the bare wire portions and the weld point, heating the shrink tube to cause it to seal to the flat wire and cover the bare wire portions and the weld point. This alteration provides the predictable results of the wire being protected from corrosion via the flat wire coating, and the shrink tube protecting the weld. It is noted that after this modification the screening mesh coating bonds to the flat wire coating and the shrink tube (all the elements are bonded together after the screen is bonded to the wire per paragraph 35 of Altieri and after the welding from paragraph 41 of Altieri, and after the shrink tube being heated from paragraph 35 of Fukaya), and that the shrink tube will fully cover the bare wire portions, with the heat shrink tube spanning across the gap.
Regarding claim 3, modified Altieri teaches that bonding the screening mesh further comprises placing the screening mesh in position on the frame and heating the screening mesh, the shrink tube, and the flat wire coating on the frame until they melt together (after the modification above, see paragraph 35 of Altieri, and paragraph 35 of Fukaya).
Regarding claim 4, modified Altieri teaches that the flat wire is comprised of spring steel (paragraph 30).
Regarding claims 5-6, modified Altieri teaches that the flat wire coating is comprised of a thermoplastic material, wherein the thermoplastic material is one of the following: PVC, nylon, polyethylene, polypropylene, and polystyrene (paragraph 35).
Regarding claim 7, modified Altieri teaches that the shrink tube has an inner surface that makes contact with the frame (after being shrunk), the inner surface having a thermoplastic adhesive for sealing with the frame (as described in paragraph 34 of Fukaya, ethylene-vinyl acetate is a type of thermoplastic).
Regarding claim 8, modified Altieri teaches that the shape has a plurality of corners (fig. 1), but does not explicitly teach that the weld point is located between four and eight inches from any of the plurality of corners.
The examiner notes that the courts have held that the particular placement of a component was held to be an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have the weld point be located between four and eight inches from any of the plurality of corners. This alteration provides the expected result of the weld point being accessible to a user.
Regarding claim 9, modified Altieri does not explicitly teach that the bare wire portions extend in a range of one to two inches from the first end and the second end.
The examiner notes that the courts have 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. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have the bare wire portions extend in the range of one to two inches from the first end and the second end. This alteration provides the expected result of the bare portions being large enough for a solid weld, without removing too much coating.
Regarding claim 10, modified Altieri does not teach that the shrink tube contains printed information regarding one or more of sizing, account name, product type and warranty information.
The examiner notes that the courts have held that where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862, 1864 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have the shrink tube contain printed information regarding one or more of sizing, account name, product type and warranty information. This alteration provides the expected result of it being easier for a user to find additional identical shrink tube if needed.
Regarding claim 11, modified Altieri teaches that in the completed shape (after the modification to claim 1 above), the bare wire portions adjacent the ends create a gap in a remaining portion of the flat wire coating left after removing the flat wire coating from the first end and the second end of the wire (in the modification above, part of the flat wire coating is removed, and there is a portion of bare wire on each end adjacent the weld point that if covered by the heat shrink tube), and wherein the heat shrink tube spans across the gap (the heat shrink tube spans the gap per the claim 1 modification above).
Regarding claim 12, modified Altieri teaches that the first end terminates at a first face and the second end terminates at a second face, and wherein the step of positioning the ends includes positioning a portion of the first face in contact with the second face (the examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known that when welding two objects together that the elements are put in contact with each other).
Regarding claim 13, modified Altieri teaches that the step of positioning the ends includes positioning the first end colinear with the second end (the figures of Altieri all show the wires being colinear, paragraph 41 teaches that the weld can be along a colinear side).
Regarding claim 14, modified Altieri teaches wherein the step of positioning the ends includes positioning the first end abutting the second end (the examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known that when welding two objects together that the elements are put in contact or abut each other).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner has bolded elements of the combination that refute concerns pointed out in the applicant’s argument.
The examiner notes that Fukaya teaches a wire having a wire coating (14, paragraph 25) prior to any bending, and the steps of removing the coating from end to create a bare wire portion adjacent the end (paragraph 30), sliding a shrink tube onto the wire and moving it away from the ends (paragraph 30), positioning the shrink tube over the bare wire portions and a weld point (solder point, paragraph 34), wherein, the bare wire portion adjacent the end create a gap in a remaining portion of the flat wire coating left (coating still remains on most of the wire, the stripped portion is this gap) after removing the flat wire coating from the end, and heating the shrink tube to cause it to seal to the wire (paragraph 35) and cover the bare wire portions and weld point (paragraph 35), wherein the heat shrink tube spans across the gap (it covers the gap).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonably expectation of success to modify Altieri so the flat wire of Altieri is precoated with a flat wire coating (it now being called a flat wire coating) prior to any bending, and by adding the steps of removing the flat wire coating from the first end and the second end to create bare wire portions adjacent the ends, wherein in the completed shape, the bare wire portions adjacent the ends create a gap in a remaining portion of the flat wire coating left after removing the flat wire coating from the first end and the second end of the wire, sliding a shrink tube onto the flat wire and moving it away from the ends, positioning the shrink tube over the bare wire portions and the weld point, heating the shrink tube to cause it to seal to the flat wire and cover the bare wire portions and the weld point. This alteration provides the predictable results of the wire being protected from corrosion via the flat wire coating, and the shrink tube protecting the weld. It is noted that after this modification the screening mesh coating bonds to the flat wire coating and the shrink tube (the melting from paragraph 41), and that the shrink tube will fully cover the bare wire portions, with the heat shrink tube spanning across the gap.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, this alteration provides the predictable results of the wire being protected from corrosion via the flat wire coating, and the shrink tube protecting the weld.
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 MATTHEW R SHEPHERD whose telephone number is (571)272-5657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at (571) 270-5616. 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.
/M.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
