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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/20/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “and weld point” on line 12, but should recite “the weld point”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-11 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 having a first end and a second end;
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, 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 weld point, 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), 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).
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, sliding a shrink tube onto the 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 wire and cover the bare wire potions and 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).
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 41).
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Fukaya is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Fukaya is about a precoated wire that contains bare wire sections with the coating removed and that is covered with heat shrink tubing to protect a weld point and the bare wire segments, which is the problem to be solved in the instant application. 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.
The applicant argues that “Claim 1 further recites “welding the ends together at a weld point to complete the shape; positioning the shrink tube over the bare wire portions and the weld point; [and] heating the shrink tube to cause it to seal to the wire and cover the bare wire portions and weld point.” Thus, the shrink tube covers the weld and two stripped ends. Fukaya does not disclose or suggest this configuration. As illustrated in Fukaya, the heat shrink tubing 40 does not cover the end portion of the core 18. But even if it did, Fukaya does not teach or suggest that the heat shrink tubing should cover beyond the end of core 18 to also cover a second bare wire portion as required by claim 1.
Claim 1 further recites “bonding the screening mesh coating to the flat wire coating and the shrink tube.” Fukaya is silent as to bonding any material to the external surface of a shrink tube and thus provides no motivation or teaching that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Altieri in the manner claimed.”
The examiner notes that all the limitations as claimed are taught by the rejection above. 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), 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).
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, sliding a shrink tube onto the 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 wire and cover the bare wire potions and 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).
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Conclusion
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