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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments filed on April 24, 2026 did not alleviate all 35 U.S.C. 112 issues and in some cases these amendments introduced new 35 U.S.C. 112 issues, please see below for current rejections.
Applicant's arguments filed April 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Ritter does not discloses “stretching each of the longitudinal wires in a respective stretching device while being fed to a welding process and drawing each of the longitudinal wires through the respective stretching device by a (common) capstan drum, as well as wherein a bundle of the longitudinal wires is fed centrally and symmetrically distributed around a central axis of a welding machine in a horizontal guideway.” Applicant has failed to specifically point out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the reference. Please see the rejection below.
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 21-28 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 21 set forth “a separate guideway.” The specification as originally filed only requires a single guideway. Claim 15 already set forth a guideway
Claim 23 set forth “a further welding device.” The specification as originally filed only requires a single welding machine. Claim 15 already set forth a welding machine.
Similarly, claim 24 set forth two guideways when only a single guideway is set forth in the specification as originally filed. Claim 24 recites: “wherein the separate guideway for the transverse wire material is arranged laterally offset up to immediately in front of the region of the welding machine and parallel to the horizontal guideway of the longitudinal wires.”
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.
Claim 15 is directed towards “A method for continuous production of mesh mats made of steel wire having longitudinal wires welded to transverse wires;” however, upon completion of the method one of ordinary skill in the art obtains longitudinal and traverse wires that have been stretched but not welded. The claim does not positively recite that the that the wires are welded together or that is there is a welding step occurring.
Claim 15 recites “using hot or cooled-rolled wire material as the longitudinal and transverse wires” – It is not clear how the material is used – for purposes of examination it is understood that “using” is mean to be “providing” and appropriate correction is required.
With regards to claim 15, line 10, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the traverse wire material”
With further regards to claim 15, “wherein a bundle of the longitudinal wires is fed centrally and symmetrically distributed around a central axis of a welding machine in a horizontal guideway.” It is not clear when the bundle (of longitudinal wires) was formed from the longitudinal wires. It is not clear if this “wherein” limitation is meant to further define the “being fed to” in the first stretching process. It is further unclear where the wires are being “fed” to since its appears to only be “around (a central axis)” of the welding machine. Additionally, the “welding machine” has not been connected as an element that is utilized in the “welding process;” although the welding process is not positively recited either.
The subject matter of claims 16-20 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 "welding" or "straightening" or some other -ing ending word that provides the active step.
Claim 16 recites: “wherein all the longitudinal wires form the bundle while being fed to the welding process, in which they are brought parallel to one another in a plane and are simultaneously stretched while parallel to one another in the plane.” Claim 16 is narrative and it is not clear if it is meant to further define the stretching step set forth in claim 15 or introduce an additional step.
Claim 17 recites: “wherein the transverse wire material is drawn through the separate stretching device by means of a take-off device.” Claim 17 is narrative and it is not clear if it is meant to further define the stretching step set forth in claim 15 or introduce an additional step.
Claim 19 recites: “wherein the stretching taking place on the transverse wire material is carried out on wire held ready on two storage drums of a pay-off device, wherein the wire is alternately drawn off from the two storage drums used alternately and free ends of the drawn off wire are welded, so that the stretching takes place on a continuous transverse wire material.” Claim 19 is narrative and it is not clear if the “wire” is mean to refer to the wire set forth in claim 15 or set forth additional wire.
With regards to claim 24, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the separate guideway for the transverse wire material” – however, please note the 112, 1st paragraph rejection above.
With regards to claim 25, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the take-off drums”
With regards to claim 26, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the respective stretching device for each of the longitudinal wires”
Examiner notes that no art has been applied to claim 23; however, the claims as currently presented are not deemed allowable and Applicant is required to clarify in compliance with 35 USC 112 so as to facilitate a clear understanding of the claimed invention and the protection sought.
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, 25-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ritter (WO 99/41029), as best understood.
With regards to claim 15, Ritter discloses a method for continuous production of mesh mats made of steel wire having longitudinal wires welded to transverse wires comprising:
using hot-rolled wire material as the longitudinal and transverse wires [Abstract],
stretching each of the longitudinal wires (completed in deice 1, as seen in Figure 1) in a respective stretching device (9, 10 as seen in Figure 2)) while being fed to a welding process (4),
drawing each of the longitudinal wires through the respective stretching device by a capstan drum (12), and
stretching the transverse wire material (completed in device 5, as seen in Figure 1) in a separate stretching device (9’, 10’, as seen in Figure 3) while being fed to the welding process (4), and
wherein a bundle of the longitudinal wires (device 1 into device 2, as seen in Figure 1) is fed centrally and symmetrically distributed around a central axis of a welding machine (4) in a horizontal guideway (3).
With regards to claim 16, Ritter discloses wherein all the longitudinal wires form the bundle (device 1 into device 2, as seen in Figure 1) while being fed to the welding process, in which they are brought parallel to one another in a plane and are simultaneously stretched while parallel to one another in the plane, as seen in Figures 1 and 3.
With regards to claim 17, Ritter discloses wherein the transverse wire material is drawn through the separate 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 (15’) and a deflection arc (23) and is straightened (via 20) only immediately before it is fed to the welding machine and is cut (via cutting device 21) in a shape of individual transverse wires.
With regards to claim 21, Ritter discloses an installation for carrying out the method of claim 15 for the continuous production of mesh mats made of steel wire comprising:
a pay-off device (8) for longitudinal wires,
a pay-off device (8’) for the transverse wire material,
wherein the transverse wire material run off from the pay-off device for the transverse wire material is feedable to a region immediately in front of the welding machine in the guideway (3) of the welding machine, as seen in Figures 1 and 3,
wherein the pay-off device for the longitudinal wires comprises a pay-off drum corresponding to each of the longitudinal wires, respectively, fed to the welding machine in a form of the bundle of the longitudinal wires, as seen in Figures 1 and 3,
wherein the bundle of the longitudinal wires is feedable to the welding machine in the horizontal guideway centrally and symmetrically distributed around the central axis of the welding machine, as seen in Figures 1 and 3, and
wherein, viewed in a direction of motion of the longitudinal wires, the capstan drum is arranged behind the respective stretching devices for the longitudinal wires, through which the longitudinal wires are drawable by the respective stretching devices, as seen in Figure 2.
With regards to claim 22, Ritter discloses wherein the separate stretching device for the transverse wire material comprises bending rollers (11) and the bending rollers are adjustable.
With regards to claim 25, Ritter discloses wherein the take-off drums in the form of capstan drums (12) are followed by a longitudinal wire conditioning device or a straightening device (15’) for the transverse wire material integrated in the transverse wire feeding device.
With regards to claim 26, Ritter discloses wherein the respective stretching device for each of the longitudinal wires is preceded by a separate wire guide for each longitudinal wire, wherein each of the respective stretching units has rollers successively engaging each longitudinal wire on opposite sides, which rollers are combined to form respective multiple rollers, in order to simultaneously apply a same tensile force to each longitudinal wire, as seen in Figure 2.
With regards to claim 28, Ritter discloses wherein a device cutter (21) for cutting the transverse wire material into individual transverse wires is integrated in a 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 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 rollers (14, 16) having grooves (34), as seen in at least Figure 1. 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
Claim 19 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights