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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: reference element 8 in Figure 1. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 Objections
Claims 15 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i)-(p).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 15 and 21 appears to lack a transitional phrase (e.g. “comprising”). A transitional phrase defines the scope of the claim in terms of what unrecited elements or method steps, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claim, as well as clearly separating the preamble of the claim from the body of claim. Accordingly, the lack of a transitional phrase renders the claim indefinite because the scope of the claim is not clearly defined. In claim 15, line 1, the phrase “having” appears to serve the same purpose as a transitional phrase to further limit the structure of the method; therefore, for the purposes of examination this will be interpreted as an open transitional phrase (i.e. equivalent to “comprising”). Please see MPEP 2111.03.
The subject matter of claims 15-20 is couched in a narrative format which does not lend itself to a clear understanding of the essential steps of the method. Positively setting forth the method as a series of steps with the essential features of each step being distinctly claimed would overcome the indefiniteness with regard to the inferential claimed provision. Applicant is respectfully reminded that to be entitled to patentable weight in method claims, the structural limitations recited therein must affect the method in a manipulative sense, and not to amount to the mere claiming of a use of a particular structure. See Ex parte Pfeiffer, 135 USPQ 31 (1961). A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced, e.g. it doesn't begin a step with "stretching" or "welding" or some other -ing ending word that provides the active step.
Wherein statements are used to further define previously set forth elements. In this case, a wherein statement is used to further define an element that was not previously, positively set forth, which makes it unclear if the recited element is required by the claimed apparatus.
With regards to claim 15, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the welding process”
Claim 16 recites: “a bundle” – it is not clear if this is meant to refer to the bundle set forth in claim 15 or if this recitation is requiring an additional bundle. It is unclear what the metes and bound of “this arrangement” encompasses.
With regards to claim 19, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the stretching process”
Claim 20 recites: “wherein the stretched transverse wire material is guided through a compensating store and a deflection arc and is straightened only immediately before it is fed to a welding machine and is cut in the shape of the individual transverse wires.” However, the specification on page 7 recites: “Reference 7 represents the wire store, in the form of a large deflection arc, from which the transverse wire feeding device 9 of the welding machine 10 itself draws the wire according to the working cycle.” It is unclear what is required of claim 20 which appears to claim two separate elements (i.e. a compensating store and a deflection arc” when the specification describes this feature as only a singular element (i.e. a store in the form of an arc).
Claims 21 recites “ a respective stretching deice…a capstan drum” – it is not clear if these recitation are mean to refer to the stretching device(s) and capstan drum set forth in claim 15 or if they are requiring additional elements.
Claim 21 recites: “with a pay-off device with a number of take-off drums corresponding to the plurality of parallel longitudinal wires which are fed to a welding machine in the form of a bundle, wherein the bundle can be fed to a welding machine in a horizontal guideway centrally arranged and symmetrically distributed around the central axis of the same” It is not clear is the second recitation of “ a welding machine” is meant to refer to the first recitation or if it is mean to introduce an additional welding machine.
With regards to claim 22, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the bending rollers”
Claim 23 recites “a welding device” – it is not clear if this recitation is mean to refer to a previous recitation of the welding device or introduce an additional welding device.
With regards to claim 25, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the take-off devices in the form of capstan drums” – it is further unclear if these elements are meant to refer to the take-off drums set forth in claim 21 or if it mean to refer to the capstan drum or an additional element.
Claim 26 recites: “wherein the stretching device for the longitudinal wires is preceded by a separate wire guide for each longitudinal wire, wherein a separate stretching unit with rollers successively engaging each longitudinal wire on opposite sides is provided for each longitudinal wire of the bundle, which rollers are combined to form respective multiple rollers, in order to simultaneously apply the same tensile force to each longitudinal wire.” Claim 15 already set forth “a stretching device” and claim 21 set forth “ a respective stretching device” – it is not clear which stretching device is being referenced with “the stretching device” in claim 26 and it is further unclear if “a separate stretching unit with rollers” is actually meant to refer to one of the previous stretching elements or introduce an additional stretching element. Also, “a separate wire guide” is unclear if this is mean to refer to the guideways set forth in claim 21 or introduce additional elements.
With regards to claim 28, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the transverse wire feeding device.”
Claim limitation “means for cutting” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Examiner noted that claims are replete with issues under 35USC 112 and the above listing is not inclusive, Applicant is required to review all of the claims for compliance to 35 USC 112 so as to facilitate a clear understanding of the claimed invention, the scope of the protection sought and the proper application of the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 15-18, 20-22, 24-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ritter (WO 99/41029), as best understood.
As best understood, with regards to claim 15, Ritter discloses a method for the continuous production of mesh mats made of steel wire having a bundle of parallel longitudinal wires that are welded to transverse wires extending in a manner spaced apart from one another,
wherein hot-wire material (Abstract) is used as the longitudinal and transverse wires,
wherein the longitudinal wires are stretched in a stretching device (9, 10) while being fed to the welding process (4, 6),
wherein the longitudinal wires are drawn through the stretching device by means of a capstan drum (12), and
wherein the transverse wire material is also stretched in a separate stretching device (9’, 10’) while being fed to the welding process.
With regards to claim 16, Ritter discloses wherein all the longitudinal wires form a bundle while being fed to the welding process, in which they are brought parallel to one another in a plane and are simultaneously stretched in this arrangement in the stretching device, as seen in Figure 2 and 3.
With regards to claim 17, Ritter discloses wherein the transverse wire material is drawn through the stretching device by means of a take-off device (15’).
With regards to claim 18, Ritter discloses wherein the transverse wire material and the longitudinal wires are straightened (via rollers 20) after stretching.
With regards to claim 20, Ritter discloses wherein the stretched transverse wire material is guided through a compensating store and a deflection arc (in absence of any disclosure in the specification or drawings as to what the “compensating store” is structural or functional - the loop storage device 23 is considered to be meet the limitation) and is straightened (via rollers 20) only immediately before it is fed to a welding machine (4, 6) and is cut in the shape of the individual transverse wires (via cutting device 21), as seen in Figure 3.
As best understood, with regards to claims 21-22 and 24-26, Ritter discloses an installation comprising:
a pay-off device (8) with a number of take-off drums for the longitudinal wires;
a pay-off device (8’) for the transverse wire materials;
a welding device (4, 6) with a guideway, as seen in at least Figure 3;
stretching devices (9, 9’, 10, 10’) with adjustable rollers (11);
a capstan device (12);
a wire conditioning device [considered to be met by at least 20, 26, 27];
guideways are provided to guide the longitudinal and traverse wires between each element in the installation as seen in Figures 2 and 3.
With regards to claim 28, Ritter discloses wherein a device (21) for cutting the transverse wire material into the individual transverse wires is integrated in the transverse wire feeding device.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter in view of Lovelett (US Patent 3,397,721).
Ritter discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the capstan drum’s roller has chambers. Lovelett is relied upon to teach Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, that Ritter’s capstan drum’s roller would have chambers (grooves), as taught by Lovelett, since Lovelett teaches its commonly known that capstan’s roller includes chambers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and further show the state of the art: US Patent 3,396,761 and US 2003/0121304 & US 2015/0197939.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA M EKIERT whose telephone number is (571)272-1901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30PM 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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
/TERESA M EKIERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725